I thought I would be safe here. But now I realize China is
telling Nepal what to do about us.

—Tibetan refugee Dorje Tsering, Kathmandu, March 2013

Since the 2008 Tibetan uprising, the largest, most
widespread unrest among Tibetans in decades, the Chinese government has
significantly tightened its control in Tibetan areas of China. It has also
pressured Nepal, which shares a long border with China and is home to a
sizeable Tibetan community, to become China’s partner in restricting
Tibetans’ basic rights.

Nepal has signed several security and
“intelligence-sharing” agreements with China since 2008;
operationalized border security cooperation; partially enforced a ban on
Tibetan public demonstrations; implemented close monitoring of the Tibetan
community, its leaders, and real or perceived activists; and deployed
intimidating numbers of Nepali armed police in Tibetan neighborhoods on
politically sensitive dates, such as the anniversary of the Dalai Lama,
International Human Rights Day (December 10), or high-level visits by Chinese
dignitaries.

The consequences are being felt across the Tibetan
community. Partly as a result of this pressure, Tibetans face excessive use of
force by police, preventive detention, torture and ill-treatment when detained,
intrusive surveillance, and arbitrary application of vaguely formulated and
overly broad definitions of security offenses.

Chodak Namgyal, a former Tibetan
monk in his twenties, arrived as a refugee in Nepal in January 2009. A former
member of the Tongkor monastery in Amdo (Kardze prefecture, Sichuan province),
he had spent several months in hiding following a clash in April 2008 in which
Chinese security forces shot at a crowd of Tibetan protesters, killing up to a
dozen people. Many monks and participants in the protest, fearing arrest, fled
into the mountains, where they remained in hiding, living in harsh conditions
for many months, to escape the large and sustained operation by the local
Chinese authorities to capture fugitives, whose pictures were on wanted posters
in the area. Relatives were monitored and pressured for information about their
relatives.

Chodak and a companion decided to
flee Tibet. They made their way to the border with Nepal, first hiding in the
back of trucks and then continuing on foot, walking only at night. In January
2009, a Tibetan guide on the Chinese side near Dram (Ch. Zhangmu) took them
overnight across the border. From there, they went to Kathmandu, travelling by
motorbike and circumventing by foot numerous Nepali police checkpoints on the
road. The two men took refuge in a Tibetan monastery in the Kathmandu valley
for several weeks, before having to leave and hide in a Tibetan district in
Kathmandu.

I am very afraid that if I am arrested I will be sent back
to China. The Chinese put my picture on the [wanted] posters in Kardze, and
they always say that we are criminals. They don’t want anyone to tell the
truth about the shootings so they will invent any pretext to arrest us. When I
arrived here [in Nepal] I was so happy I had finally managed to escape Tibet. I
thought I would be safe and I can finally openly pray for His Holiness [the
Dalai Lama]. But now I can see Nepal is not safe for Tibetans. The police are
there doing the surveillance and there are many informers. Even in the
monasteries there are informers and this is why we had to leave the monastery
that initially sheltered us.

The Tibetans here are always afraid. I have no document,
not even a single piece of paper, and I don’t speak Nepali. If I am
arrested I fear what can happen to me. Even once I joined the celebrations for
His Holiness at the monastery here [in Boudhanath] the police came inside the
courtyard with their weapons and tore down the banner with His Holiness’
portrait. I fear going to [public Tibetan] events but our brothers and sisters
are in Tibet, so many have self-immolated, how could we remain
silent? Every time the police arrest some people just for participating in
peaceful prayers. The police take picture, I am sure it is for China. There are
cameras everywhere around here [in Boudhanath] now. How can we have any
guarantee about how these images are used? In Lhasa there are cameras
everywhere, and now I fear that Boudhanath is going the same direction. For all
we know, the Chinese police could be sitting in Lhasa watching us as we speak.

Dorje Lhundup, a 24-year-old Tibetan born in a settlement in
Kathmandu, told Human Rights Watch he had been arrested multiple times in 2008
and 2009 because of his participation in Tibetan public events. Since then, the
Nepali police have kept a close eye on him, often detaining him before
high-level Chinese official visits or planned Tibetan public events.

Last time I was arrested by the police the day before some
Chinese official arrived to visit. The police came to my home and arrested me
even though I had done nothing. At the police station, one policeman told me,
“Oh, you are a real troublemaker, we are going to deport you to China,
you know? It is very easy for us to send you back to China and no one will ever
know.” I am born here, but I don't have any document. Thankfully, I can
speak good Nepali. It’s like they just want Tibetans to disappear. But if
we stopped protesting, would all problems be solved? If we Tibetans lose our
voice it won’t be long before we disappear.

China has targeted Nepal because it has long been the first
destination for Tibetans wanting to escape China, leave temporarily, or send
their children outside the country. The long and often treacherous walk across
the Himalayas into Nepal is the most direct way to reach Dharamsala, in
northern India, where the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan government-in-exile, and
80,000 Tibetans are based.

Nepal’s Tibetan community of about 15,000-20,000 is
made up of the relatives and descendants of an initial wave of refugees who
arrived in Nepal following the Dalai Lama’s escape to India in 1959, and
of periodic flows since then of new refugees and migrants coming from Tibet or
returning from India.

From 1959 to 1989, the Nepali government recognized and
registered Tibetans crossing the border as refugees. In 1989, following a
diplomatic rapprochement with China, the King of Nepal stopped allowing Tibetan
refugees to settle permanently in Nepal. Under the terms of an informal,
unwritten, “Gentleman’s Agreement” with the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), however, Nepal continued to permit the
“safe passage” of refugees from Tibet to India.

For several months during and after the 2008 protests in
Tibet, Kathmandu became a focal point of pro-Tibetan political activity, with
almost daily street demonstrations, gatherings, and political events. Under
intense diplomatic pressure from China—some of it overt and
public—the Nepali government curtailed Tibetan demonstrations, with the
police often clashing with demonstrators or rounding up Tibetans they suspected
of planning public action. International media, barred from Tibet itself,
prominently featured these clashes. The suppression of Tibetan political
activities in Nepal in 2008 was the subject of a report Human Rights Watch
published in August of that year, titled “Appeasing China: Restricting
the Rights of Tibetans in Nepal.”

This report analyzes conditions for Tibetans in Nepal five
years later. Restrictions on Tibetans’ rights in Nepal and on the
Nepal-China border have grown much more stringent since 2008. While Nepal has
maintained some basic protections for Tibetans, it has restricted their freedom
of assembly and expression and engaged in arbitrary arrest and detention of
protesters or those believed to be planning protests. The government has also
made it harder for Tibetans to obtain documentation that would allow them to go
to school, seek employment, run businesses, or engage in other activities.

The political repression has been explicit. In March 2009,
in an interview in a Chinese newspaper (the English language translation is
presented for the first time in this report, see Appendix II), Nepal deputy
inspector general of police Bharat Bahadur G.C. spoke of Nepal’s
intensifying crackdown on Tibetan political speech. As he explained it, the
orders came from the highest levels:

Nepal Prime Minister Khil Raj Regmi and Deputy Prime
Minister/Minister for Home Affairs Krishna Bahadur Mahara gave [the] order to
crackdown on all “Tibetan Independence” activities in Nepal. Prime
Minister Khil Raj Regmi said that Nepal and China enjoy a strong friendship, so
the Nepali government will not allow any “Tibetan Independence”
activities on its soil. Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara personally
called me and asked me to combat “Tibetan Independence” activities
at all cost, with no reservation and no mercy. The police see the leadership’s
determination as reassurance to act on this issue…

In the same interview, Bharat Bahadur G.C. boasted of
Nepal’s sharp increase in surveillance of Tibetans and declared that,
following the 2008 uprising in Tibet, “combating ‘Tibetan
Independence’ is my main task.”

Chinese Pressure on Nepal

It is no surprise that China would pressure Nepal to push back
Tibetans or to crackdown on their political activities in Nepal. Beijing
continues to assert that the 14th Dalai Lama and supporters of the
Tibetan cause in exile or abroad play a major role in seeding discontent among
ethnic Tibetans in China. It also continues to see this purported negative
influence as a substantial hurdle to inculcating the kind of undivided
political loyalty to the Communist Party and the state that it would like to
see among Tibetans in China. For these reasons, measures to limit foreign and
cross-border influence have featured prominently in the policies that Beijing
has meticulously deployed since the 2008 protests.

These policies have included militarily sealing off
Tibet’s international borders to end the constant trickle of Tibetans
fleeing the region. The approach seems to be working: the number of Tibetans
crossing the border has dropped from an average of 2,200 per year before the
2008 protests, to under a thousand between 2009 and 2012, to 171 in 2013. The
available evidence suggests that Tibetans detained by Chinese authorities for
crossing the border irregularly from Nepal are routinely imprisoned and
physically abused in China.

Chinese authorities have confiscated the passports of many
Tibetans and require that all Tibetans submit to pre- and post-trip debriefings
with police as a condition of international travel. They maintain registers of
Tibetans who have family members abroad. Tibetans within Tibet must now also
endure rigorous scrutiny before obtaining domestic travel permits. In recent
years Tibetans have been arrested and sentenced for passing, receiving, or
simply consuming information critical of China’s policies in Tibet.

There is now substantial evidence of increased Chinese
government monitoring and censoring of telecommunications, Internet activity
and messaging, and increased limitations on access to foreign Tibetan language
broadcasts through the jamming and confiscation of satellite reception dishes.
Chinese authorities have also stepped up efforts to prevent Tibetan communities
in neighboring countries from assisting, documenting, or protesting conditions
in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and adjoining provinces with significant
Tibetan populations. As detailed below, China frequently imprisons, and
tortures or otherwise mistreats Tibetans who leave China without permission.

Official Chinese government reports and testimonies of
Nepali officials suggest that, in line with China’s general strategy to
suppress the influence of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile community inside
China and to combat or minimize international pressure, Beijing has had three
primary objectives with respect to Nepal:

Ensuring Nepal’s effective cooperation
with China’s efforts to put an end to clandestine border-crossing by
Tibetan asylum seekers and migrants, including children sent to study in
Tibetan schools in India by their families;

Enforcing a de-facto ban on pro-Tibetan
political mobilization in Nepal, including demonstrations and all
activities linked to the Dalai Lama or Central Tibetan Administration (the
Tibetan government-in-exile);

Enrolling Nepal’s intelligence and
law-enforcement apparatus to monitor and infiltrate Tibetan communities
living in Nepal, as to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for China.

Beijing seems to have
recognized early on that the Nepali state did not have the capacity or
resources to carry out the significant expansion of the security sector that
Beijing had in mind. It also recognized that Nepal had no strong national
interest in curbing the activities of a community that has lived peacefully and
played an important role in the tourism and export economy in Nepal for many
decades, and whose well-being has been a consistent concern of representatives
in Nepal of the United States and of a number of European countries.

China’s decision to significantly scale up its
economic and diplomatic engagement with Nepal after 2008—which culminated
with then-premier Wen Jiabao’s state visit in January 2012 and with China
becoming one of the top foreign direct investors in the country—was in
part aimed at influencing Nepal’s calculations about where its national
interests lie. This strategy appears to have been at least partially effective.

The Chinese authorities have kept some Tibetans, apparently
on an ad hoc basis, from returning to China. Since January 2013, more than 20
ethnic Tibetan citizens of China seeking to return to China, all carrying valid
PRC documents, have been refused re-entry by Chinese officials and forced to
remain in Nepali territory. The reasons are not entirely clear, but it appears
to be an effort by China to discourage surreptitious visits to Dharamsala by
Tibetans from China.

Yet in recent years Chinese
officials have become more aggressive on Tibetan issues in Nepal. In 2008 the
Chinese embassy attempted to influence a decision by the Nepali Supreme Court
regarding the registration in Nepal of the Tibetan Welfare Office, the de facto
representative office of the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration
(CTA). The effort succeeded, even though an unofficial office has continued to
operate in the same location.

Nepal and China have a longstanding agreement “not to
allow their territories to be used to carry out activities against the
other,” a commitment regularly reiterated in diplomatic statements.
Nepal’s adherence to the “One-China policy” and its
resistance to “allowing its territory to be used for activities against
China” are reaffirmed at every meeting between China and Nepal. Yet
Chinese expectations of Nepal have grown. Nepal now commits to “not allowing
its territory to be used by any force to carry out ‘anti-China’
activities” and to “crack down on anti-China activities.”

Since 2009, China’s foreign policy has made increasing
reference to demands for the respect of its “core interests,” which
remain ill-defined but are widely understood to include Taiwan, Tibet, and
Xinjiang. In January 2012, former Nepali Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai of
the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) announced during a state visit by Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao that:

Nepal attaches great importance to China's core interests,
firmly adheres to the One-China policy and deems Taiwan and Tibet as an
integral part of China. The Nepali government will never allow any anti-China
activities on its territory.

Much of China’s
pressure remains invisible. According to a former government chief secretary
interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Nepal is not in a position to resist these
demands:

The level of pressure from China is great, and often not
seen. This kind of pressure is not seen openly but this is how it is happening.
Over the years I have seen how a low-level Chinese person has high-level access
on the Nepali side. It’s completely unequal. Nepal has no capacity
to fight back against this pressure. The US is the only international actor who
speaks up on the issue.

The Gentleman’s Agreement

The “Gentleman’s Agreement” was
established between Nepal and UNHCR guaranteeing the “safe passage”
of refugees from Tibet to India. The agreement states that Tibetan refugees
apprehended by the Nepali authorities be handed over to UNHCR for processing
and transit to Dharamsala. China rejects the categorization of Tibetans who
have fled Tibet as “refugees.”

When we began this research, many refugee experts and
analysts said they believed the Gentleman’s Agreement was working well
for all Tibetans in Nepal. The agreement appears to be working well for
Tibetans apprehended far inside the territory of Nepal, but less well and much
more erratically for those apprehended at or near the border.

Our research suggests that border police forces have forcibly
returned to China Tibetans intercepted at the border or before they reach
inhabited areas. A former senior Nepali Home Ministry official told Human
Rights Watch that local border police have pushed back or repatriated Tibetans
found at or near the border if the Armed Police Force determined that they were
not “legitimate refugees,” although no formal process was
undertaken to make such a determination. . A senior official from the
Department of Immigration also told Human Rights Watch that while he was
working along the border Tibetans were forced back. Tibetans interviewed by
Human Rights Watch who had crossed the border from Tibet clandestinely at
Kodari said that they had to reach Kathmandu without being caught by Nepali
police otherwise they would be handed back to China.

While Human Rights Watch is not able to corroborate these admissions,
we believe they are credible and require further investigation, not least
because any persons forced back face a high risk of torture or ill-treatment upon
return to China. Nepal bars UNHCR staff from visiting border areas to monitor
the situation directly. The number of refugees from Tibet registered by UNHCR
fell to an unprecedented low of 171 individuals in 2013, compared to an annual
average between 1991 and 2008 of more than 2,200.

The multiplication of police and administrative controls on
individuals and businesses has made Tibetans increasingly vulnerable to
arbitrary fines and petty corruption. Obstacles to education, housing,
movement, employment, and public and private services (such as renewal of
driver’s licenses, bank services, and various administrative registration
requirements) have become more severe as Nepali government perceptions of
Tibetans as an irritant in relations with China have increased. Tibetans say
that this perception is also frequently shared among a growing number of Nepali
due to the negative reporting in the local media.

While many such issues are not new, they were often
mitigated before 2008 by flexible responses from local authorities, in
particular the central district officers (CDOs), the highest civil servant in
each of the country’s 75 districts. Tibetans interviewed for this report
told us that such local government officials are far less willing today to
consider requests from Tibetan community leaders.

Since 2008, Nepali government officials have justified their
increasingly restrictive policies toward Tibetan refugees citing
“geopolitical sensitivities,” Nepal’s official adherence to
the “One-China principle,” and what they present as the corollary
duty of not allowing “Nepali soil to be used for anti-China
activities.”

There is no legal basis for these policies. The term
“anti-China activities” has no meaning or force in Nepali law. Any
policies or practices specifically targeting Tibetan political speech are
clearly discriminatory and violate international law. To the extent that Nepal
prohibits peaceful political protests by all noncitizens, it also violates
well-established international human rights law: Nepal is bound to guarantee
freedom of speech and assembly for all residents; any restrictions must be set
out in domestic law and not restrict peaceful exercise of political speech. For
the Nepali government to use China’s opinion as the basis for determining
whether a specific activity is or not “anti-China” is a short step
from accepting that any Tibetan criticism of China, as well as any promotion of
Tibetan identity, ought to be suppressed.

The increased surveillance
and monitoring of Tibetan communities in Nepal facilitates discrimination
against them, and makes them more vulnerable to police and criminal justice
system abuse whether or not they are politically active. A member of a leading
local human rights NGO told Human Rights Watch that, “the treatment of
Tibetans is having a corrosive effect on the entire Nepali judicial system
…it conveys the perception that some categories of people can be excluded
from the protection of the law. Today, it’s the Tibetans, but tomorrow,
who will it be? The law should apply equally to all, without exceptions.”

The government’s emphasis on taking China’s
political sensitivities into account in handling Tibetan issues has
increasingly affected Nepal’s civil society and media. A leading human
rights NGO executive told Human Rights Watch that working on Tibetan issues is
“too sensitive and risks jeopardizing work on other, more mainstream
issues.” A newspaper editor acknowledged that self-censorship across
major newspapers means that “controversial” issues such as Tibet
and China’s human rights record are sidestepped. Nongovernmental
organizations that have continued to monitor the human rights situation of the
Tibetan community, such as Human Rights Organization of Nepal (HURON), have
been subjected to pressures and accused of disloyalty towards the state.

Nepal is an important haven for many Tibetans. As the
political crisis in Tibet continues and deepens, Nepali government policies and
practices toward them become ever more critical in protecting them, and serve
as a barometer of how influential the Chinese government is in pressuring its
neighbors to join it in violating the free expression and other rights of Tibetans.
The findings of this report suggest China’s influence is sharply rising
and, as a result, the situation of Tibetans is ever more precarious.

Key Recommendations

To the Government of Nepal

Immediately stop forcibly returning Tibetans to
China unless their right to seek asylum is protected, including those rejected
at the border or apprehended in Nepal.

Strictly uphold and respect international law
prohibiting refoulement.

Issue RCs, as
appropriate, to Tibetans who fled to Nepal after 1989 and are unable or
unwilling to go to India to lodge asylum claims.

Ease renewal modalities and issue refugee
certificates to eligible Tibetans as well as to their dependents (spouse and
children).

Protect the rights
of all persons in Nepal, including Tibetans, to freedom of expression
and assembly, regardless of legal status, and cease dispersing peaceful
protests by Tibetans.

Repeal restrictions on the rights of Tibetan
residents to own property, work, establish and incorporate businesses, and
travel freely.

To the Government of China

Immediately end the torture and other ill-treatment
of Tibetans arrested for having crossed or attempting to cross the border
without proper documentation.

Provide passports and end restrictions on Tibetans
who wish to leave the country.

Allow re-entry to all Tibetans who are Chinese
citizens.

End pressure on the
government of Nepal or individual Nepali officials to engage in policies or take
measures that are in contradiction with international human rights and refugee
law.

Methodology

Human Rights Watch conducted research for this report in
Nepal from November 2012 to October 2013. We conducted 41 in-depth interviews
with Tibetans in Nepal. Human Rights Watch also visited four refugee
settlements located in Kathmandu and Pokhara, and spoke with Tibetans at the
border crossing in Kodari, Sindhulpalchok District.

In addition, we spoke by phone and in person with dozens of
Nepali officials, foreign diplomats in Nepal, UN agency representatives, and
members of NGOs with firsthand information about the issues covered in this
report.

Human Rights Watch also wrote to the Nepali government
inviting it to respond to our finding. As of this writing, we had received no
response (a copy of the letter is included as an appendix to this report).

We conducted interviews primarily in English and in Tibetan
with English interpretation. In a few cases, we conducted interviews in
English. In both the body of the report and in footnotes, we have generalized
locations of interviews in Nepal to the district level so that those
interviewed and their families cannot be easily identified. We have used
pseudonyms or initials for all Tibetans named in this report unless otherwise
indicated. In some cases other identifying information has been withheld in the
interest of confidentiality and security.

Whenever possible, and in a majority of cases, interviews
were conducted on a one-on-one basis. All those interviewed were informed of
the purpose of the interview, its voluntary nature, and the ways in which the
information would be used. All interviewees were told they could decline to
answer questions or end the interview at any time. All provided oral consent to
be interviewed. None received compensation.

In addition to the interviews described above, we drew on a
number of secondary sources, including Chinese official and media sources,
United Nations reports, academic studies and other publications, previous Human
Rights Watch reporting, and other nongovernmental organization reports.

In this report, the term “Tibet” refers to the
Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and the Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures (TAP) of
the adjoining provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan.

I. Tibetans in Nepal

Approximately 13,000 Tibetans live in Nepal, according to a
2009 census published by the Tibetan Central Administration (the Tibetan
government-in-exile, based in Dharamsala.)[1]
The majority of Tibetans live in the Kathmandu valley, in the Boudhanath
and Sayambunath districts of the city, and in the Jawalakhel settlement. The
second largest community is found in and around Pokhara. A few thousand live in
isolated settlements such as in Namgyaling, Mustang, and Gyalsa, close to the
border with China.[2]

Recent information suggests that fewer than 25% of Tibetans
recorded in the settlements hold valid Refugee Certificates (RCs), Nepali
identity documents that the government at one time issued to Tibetan refugees
and their descendants. The government stopped accepting new Tibetan refugees
and therefore issuing RCs after December 31, 1989, following a diplomatic
rapprochement with China. Until the mid-1990s, it continued to issue RCs to children
born in Nepal to Tibetan parents holding RCs once they turned 16. From 1994 to
1998, it gradually stopped issuing RCs altogether—even for children born
before the 1990 cut-off date.[3]

A RC serves as an official identity document and grants its
holder the right to reside and travel in Nepal (with the exception of some
areas). It does not, however, entitle its owner to a wide range of rights,
including property ownership, employment, higher education, and travel abroad.

Some Tibetans have other status.
Some hold full Nepali citizenship, acquired either through naturalization or as
a result of marriage to a male Nepali citizen; some grew up in India, moved to
Nepal for family reasons or employment, but retain Indian identity papers; some
still hold the nationality or passport of another country and are legal foreign
residents.

Between 1990 and 2007, over 40,000 Tibetans successfully
transited through Nepal to India under the terms of the informal
Gentleman’s Agreement between Nepal and UNHCR, an average of 2,200 per
year. From 2008 to 2012, the average number fell to about 650 per year. In
2013, following significant strengthening of security on the Chinese side of
the border and introduction of strenuous restrictions on movement within Tibet,
the number fell to 171 only.[4]

Nepal’s International Legal Obligations

While Nepal is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or
its 1967 Protocol, it is a party to other treaties, including the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment
(CAT), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)[5].
These treaties establish the obligation to respect the principle of nonrefoulement,
which holds that refugees should not be forcibly returned to a place where
their lives or freedom would be threatened, and that no person should be
returned to a place where he or she would be subjected to torture or to cruel
or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 3 of CAT forbids the
return or expulsion of any persons to states where they would be in danger of
being tortured. Article 7.1 of the ICCPR forbids subjecting anyone to torture
or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The United Nations
Human Rights Committee, in Comment 20 (1992), has emphasized that states
“must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment of punishment upon return to any country by way of their
extradition, expulsion or refoulement.”[6]

Article 2.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights requires Nepal as a state party to ensure rights to “all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” The UN
Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No.15 on the ICCPR, has
unambiguously stated that aliens “have the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion, and the right to hold opinions and to express them.
Aliens receive the benefit of the right of peaceful assembly and of freedom of
association.” Nepal is therefore clearly obligated to uphold the right of
Tibetans in Nepal, regardless of their status, to freedom of expression and
peaceful assembly, even if the Interim Constitution only extends these rights
to citizens.

UNHCR’s Executive Committee adopted Conclusion 25 in
1982, which declared that “the principle of nonrefoulement…was
progressively acquiring the character of a peremptory rule of international
law.”[7]
The UN General Assembly reinforced the international consensus that the nonrefoulement
obligation adheres to all states, not just parties to the Refugee Convention,
when it adopted Resolution 51/75 on August 12, 1997, which:

[C]alls upon all States to
uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument for international protection of
refugees and to respect scrupulously the fundamental principle of nonrefoulement,
which is not subject to derogation.[8]

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Refugee
Convention in 2001, the Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention
and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees acknowledged
“the continuing relevance and resilience of this international regime of
rights and principles, including at its core the principle of nonrefoulement,
whose applicability is embedded in customary international law.”[9]
Later that year, the UN General Assembly welcomed the Declaration.

The principle of nonrefoulement as a customary norm of
international law applies not only to refugees within the territory of a state,
but also to rejection of asylum seekers at the frontiers. In its October 2004
meeting, UNHCR’s Executive Committee issued Conclusion 99, which calls on
States to ensure “full respect for the fundamental principle of nonrefoulement,
including non-rejection at frontiers without access to fair and effective
procedures for determining status and protection needs.”[10]

Fears that Tibetans forcibly returned to China would face
persecution are well established. Severe, longstanding human rights violations
by the Chinese state against Tibetans—ranging from sharp statutory
restrictions on basic rights and freedoms, to religious persecution against the
clergy and laity, socio-economic and political discrimination, political
prosecutions and torture, and mistreatment of prisoners—have been
authoritatively documented over the years, including by inter-governmental
bodies such as the United Nations.[11]

In view of the above, Human Rights Watch believes that
Tibetans who flee or have fled China without permission, as well as those
fitting the profiles previously described, would be at high risk of persecution
if forcibly returned to China. They should be granted full refugee status and
protection.[13]

II. The “Gentleman’s Agreement”

The Gentleman’s Agreement, an informal agreement
between the government of Nepal and UNHCR, has been critical in ensuring the
safe passage of Tibetans seeking to escape from China and/or reach India.[14]
It serves the following objectives:

Ensuring access
to the territory of Nepal for Tibetans seeking to reach India;

Ensuring respect for the prohibition against forced returns
(refoulement), including at the Nepal-China border itself;

Ensuring that the Nepali government will provide exit permits to
newly arrived Tibetan asylum seekers verified by UNHCR to allow their prompt,
unhindered departure to India.

Under the Gentleman’s Agreement, Tibetans who are
apprehended are first detained by the police and then turned over to the
Department of Immigration (DoI). Police bring the Tibetans to the DoI in
Kathmandu, for which the UNHCR, via the DoI, pays the police a stipend to
defray their costs, since bringing Tibetans from remote areas can take several
days. The DoI then contacts UNHCR, which helps ensure their transfer to the
Tibetan Reception and Transit Centre (TRTC), where they receive food, shelter,
accommodation, and medical attention. The TRTC is supported by UNHCR and other
international donors, including the United States.

A summary interview is conducted with the Tibetans at the
Center to determine that they are Tibetan refugees. The interviews are
conducted by TRTC staff with oversight from UNHCR. The interviews explore the
reasons of the Tibetans new arrivals for leaving Tibet and immediate plans in
India.

Tibetans then applies to the
Indian Embassy for an entry permit to India and once the Special Entry permit
has been issued UNHCR sends a request to DoI for exit permits to be
issued.

The DoI exit permits only
provide Tibetans with the right to travel from the TRTC to the Indian border.
The TRTC generally waits until it has a sufficient number of Tibetans to
charter a bus, and then takes them to the Indian border at Sonauli. On the day
of departure, the DoI dispatches officers to verify the identity of all those
who have been issued exit permits.

Since
1990, the Nepali authorities have
generally upheld the Gentleman’s Agreement for Tibetans who have managed
to make their presence on Nepali soil known to parties concerned with the fate
of Tibetan refugees (members of the Tibetan community, NGOs, UNHCR staff, and
others), or whose arrest by Nepali security forces was witnessed by third
parties who could report an eventual forced return. The Agreement is still key
to protect Tibetans fleeing China or arriving in Nepal, and wanting to go to
India.

However, since the early2000s, and even more so since 2008,
Nepali authorities have increased their pressure on Tibetans. Intimidation is
common, with many incidents in which local police order but do not force
Tibetans to return to China; well-founded concerns that the Department of
Immigration is sharing details on who is transiting through Nepal with Chinese
authorities.

It has also become more difficult for Tibetans to reach
Nepal. China has devoted significant efforts and resources since 2008 to seal
off its border with Nepal by imposing a much tighter system of internal travel
permits on Tibetans. It has stationed border defense posts of the
People’s Armed Police at critical locations, including in mountain passes
previously used as routes to clandestinely reach Nepal. Plainclothes Chinese
security agents have been seen several kilometers inside Nepal territory, especially
at the main border point of Kodari. Cooperation between Nepal’s Armed
Police Force, which patrols the border, and the Chinese Public Security Bureau
has deepened significantly. The result has been a dramatic decrease in the
number of Tibetans who manage to reach Nepal territory. From an average of two
to three thousand per year before 2008, the numbers fell to 600 in 2008, less
than 1,000 annually between 2008 and 2011, and 171 in 2013.[15]

III. Nepal’s Justifications for Imposing Restrictions on Tibetans

Nepal does not deny that it prevents Tibetans from
exercising the right to peaceful expression and assembly, and instead gives
three reasons for its prohibitions on “political activities”: that
the constitutional protection for freedom of expression and assembly applies
only to citizens; that Nepal has no legal obligations towards Tibetan refugees,
especially since it is not a party to the Refugee Convention; and that
Nepal’s foreign policy commitments to China supersede its legal obligations.[16]

Nepal’s Interim Constitution guarantees “(a)
freedom of opinion and expression; (b) freedom to assemble peaceably and
without arms… [and] (e) freedom to move and reside in any part of
Nepal,” but limits the protections to “citizens.”[17]
The government has at times openly argued that it is justified in denying the
enjoyment of these basic rights to Tibetans, who are not recognized as Nepali
citizens.

Nepal’s international legal commitments forbid this.[18]
The ICCPR recognizes that, in certain circumstances, temporary restrictions and
limitations on the exercise of rights such as freedom of assembly may be
justified. Article 4 of the ICCPR allows states to
““derogate”” from some of the standards in times of
“public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the
existence of which is officially proclaimed.”[19]
Such measures must be necessary and “strictly required by the exigencies
of the situation.”[20]
But to date, the Nepali government has never claimed that Tibetan protests
constituted a public emergency, and it is highly unlikely that independent
courts would accept that peaceful protests meet this test.

The Nepali government also justifies its approach to Tibetan
protests and public gatherings by citing its commitment to the “One-China
principle” and its pledge that it will “not to allow its territory
to serve for organizing activities against a neighbor.”[21]

In a typical statement issued in June 2011, then-Deputy
Prime Minister and Home Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara said that “Nepal
does not have policy to allow any activities against its neighbors. We are
aware about Free Tibet activities. We won't let such activities take place in
Nepali soil.”[22]The
standard public statement by Nepali officials on the Tibet issue is that
“Nepal respects the One-China policy[23]
and will not allow Nepali territory to be used against China.”[24]This justification is routinely invoked by law enforcement
officials in their dealings with Tibetans to justify prohibiting planned
gatherings, restrictions on movement, summonses for questioning, and
detentions.

Nepal may make such declarations as statements of foreign
policy, but they do not trump Nepali law, or Nepal’s international legal
obligations. The term “anti-China activities” has no meaning or
force in Nepali law. Since speech or actions that are critical of the Chinese
government or its policies are not formally prohibited under Nepali law, the
standard protections provided for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
apply: Nepal is bound to guarantee freedom of speech and assembly under
international human rights law, which means any restrictions must be set out in
domestic law and not restrict peaceful political speech.

Long-standing diplomatic pledges that Nepal “will not
allow its territory to be used against China” are also routinely invoked
to justify the prohibition on a wide range of Tibetan activities. In one of the
most expansive iteration of this pledge, the January 2012 Joint Declaration
issued at the outcome of the visit of then Premier Wen Jiabao to Nepal stated:

The Nepali side firmly supports the efforts made by the
Chinese side to uphold state sovereignty, national unity and territorial
integrity, and does not allow any forces to use Nepali territory for any
anti-China or separatist activities.[25]

The term “separatist activities” is how China
characterizes political mobilization in favor of the independence or autonomy
of any part of the PRC (it also applies to advocacy on behalf of Taiwanese
independence). It is broadly construed as any attitude that goes against the
Communist Party’s doctrine of “ethnic unity” (minzu tuanjie,
or “unity between the nationalities,”), which stipulates,
“the Han and the minority nationalities are inseparable.”
“Separatism” and “incitement to separatism” are
explicit crimes under Chinese law.

As a result, China criminalizes and suppresses many forms of
speech or assembly that are clearly protected under international law
provisions guaranteeing freedom of expression and assembly. Beijing also
accuses the Dalai Lama, and other exile organizations of promoting
“separatism.” By extension, it considers the activities of the
“Dalai Clique” as separatist in nature, hence China’s
opposition to foreign political leaders and institutions meeting with the Dalai
Lama or the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Nepal’s frequent use of the term
“anti-China” and the new inclusion of the term “separatist
activities” in the 2012 Joint Statement are especially problematic
because they legitimize the replacement of a legal test—whether or not an
activity is legal—with a political one—whether the content offends,
or is likely to offend, China’s sensitivities. It is also a short step
from accepting that any Tibetan criticism of China, or promotion of the
distinctiveness of Tibetan culture, ought to be suppressed.

Under Nepali law, “anti-China” sentiment or
activity, “separatism,” and “separatist activities” are
not criminal offenses. It is immaterial under Nepali law whether the content of
speech is believed to be “anti-China” or
“separatist.”

IV. China’s Role

Tibet-related matters remain China’s top concern in
Nepal.[26]
Beijing sees the presence of a large Tibetan community, the ties they maintain
with Tibetans in China, and the fact that the long border along the Himalayas
can still be crossed clandestinely as critical factors that must be addressed
to prevent challenges to its rule in Tibet.[27]

Since 2008, the Chinese government has redoubled its efforts
to sever the links between Tibetans living in China and the Tibetan diaspora,
in particular the Dalai Lama, so as to limit the diaspora’s perceived
influence and conceal the extent of human rights violations that take place in
Tibet.[28]

China’s Top Priority in Nepal: Tibet

Enlisting Nepali authorities’ cooperation in Tibetan
matters has long been the key objective of China’s diplomacy and
engagement in Nepal. Beijing’s clarity on this matter is plain even in
the public remarks of its Nepali interlocutors: after meeting with President Xi
Jinping in Beijing in April 2013, Pushpa Kama Dahal, leader of the main Maoist
party and former prime minister of Nepal, acknowledged that “[The Chinese
government’s] major concern was security in Tibet.”[29]

Similarly, after a July 2012 Ministry-level meeting in
Beijing, a member of the Nepali delegation told the Nepali daily Republica
that, “More than anything else, the Chinese seemed wary about the
anti-China activities of Tibetan refugees living in Nepal.”[30]

They demanded that Nepal punish the Tibetans illegally
entering into Nepali territory as per the law of the land, instead of handing
them over to the UN refugee agency.[31]

In March 2012, the spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy in
Kathmandu told Chinese journalists that “Tibetans who have crossed the
border illegally are not refugees.”[32]China
has on occasion requested the return of Tibetan refugees already in Nepali
custody, and the involvement of the UNHCR has often been the only safeguard
that prevented Nepal from doing so.[33]

The selection of diplomatic personnel for the Chinese
embassy in Kathmandu may also reflect Beijing’s priorities in the
country: Wu Chuntai, the new ambassador installed in 2013, was previously the
deputy-head of the Department of External Security Affairs of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, whose role is to study “external security issues”
that affect China. The Department is currently headed by a previous ambassador
to Nepal, Qiu Guohong.[34]
Wu’s previous postings include a seven-year stint in Turkey, home to the
largest refugee community from Xinjiang, China’s other restive ethnic
area.[35]

Chinese Aid and Investment

China is an increasingly important economic and diplomatic
partner of Nepal. As a small and impoverished country landlocked between India
and China, Nepal sees in its expanding relationship with China an opportunity
for much-needed economic development, foreign direct investment, and aid, as
well as a way to balance its traditional dependence on India.[36]

China’s aid has steadily risen since 2008, most of it
in the form of soft loans. The three most important aid packages—each
including a security component—were announced in a rapid succession of
high-level Chinese visits between March 2011 and January 2012:

In March 2011, General Chen Bingde, chief of general staff of China's People's
Liberation Army, signed a military aid package worth US$19 million during his
visit to Kathmandu.[37]

In August
2011, China’s domestic security chief, Zhou Yongkang, accompanied by a
60-member delegation, pledged loans and aid worth US$50 million, including a US$24
million soft loan for a hydropower transmission line project.[38]

In January
2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced that China would offer 750
million RMB (US$113 million) in aid to Nepal as well as a US$20 million
one-time special grant. He also pledged to provide a three-year, 750 million
RMB grant to assist with economic and technical cooperation.[39]

The Chinese government also provides 3 million Nepali rupees
(US$42,500) to each of the 14 districts in Nepal bordering China for the
development of their Village Development Committees (VDCs), the local
administrative structure.[40]

Improving Infrastructure Along the Nepal-China
Border

Reflecting China’s preoccupation with border control,
many infrastructure projects focus on the construction of road links and dry
ports. China has been supporting the construction of a 16km-long road linking
Syprubesi in Rasuwa with Kyirong county in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR)
in China. On the Nepal side, a 105km road from Trisuli to Sombdang, the
Pasang Lahmu Highway, is being improved with support from the Chinese
government.[41] Nepal and China also plan to
develop cross border roads through Simikot-Hilsa (85 km), Jomsom-Korala (80
km), and Khandbari-Kimanthanka (80 km).[42] To facilitate trade between the
two countries, China is now in the process of constructing a dry port at Larcha
in the Sindhupalchowk district. Further dry ports are being planned at
Yari-Pulam, Rasuwa-Jilong, Kodari-Zangmu (Khasa), Kimathanka-Dingri,
Olangchungola-Riwa, and Mustang-Lingzi.[43]

Nepal’s Commitments to China

Nepal and China have a long-standing agreement “not to
allow their territories to be used to carry out activities against the
other,”[44]
a commitment regularly reiterated in diplomatic statements. Nepal’s
adherence to the “One-China policy” and its resistance to
“allowing its territory to be used for activities against China”
are reaffirmed at every meeting between China and Nepal.[45]

Chinese expectations of Nepal have grown, as the shift in
rhetoric shows. Nepal now commits to “not allowing its territory to be
used by any force to carry out ‘anti-China’ activities,”[46]
and, even more directly, commits to “crack down on anti-China
activities.”[47]
Since 2009, China’s foreign policy has made increasing reference to
demands for the respect of its “core interests,” which remain
ill-defined but are widely understood to include Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang.[48]
In January 2012, Nepali Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai announced during a
state visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao that:

Nepal attaches great importance to China's core interests,
firmly adheres to the one-China policy and deems Taiwan and Tibet as an
integral part of China. The Nepali government will never allow any anti-China
activities on its territory.[49]

Much of China’s pressure remains invisible. According
to a former government chief secretary, Nepal is not in a position to resist
these demands:

The level of pressure from China is great, and often not
seen. This kind of pressure is not seen openly but this is how
it is happening. Over the years I have seen how a low level Chinese person has
high-level access on the Nepali side. It’s completely unequal. Nepal has no capacity to fight back against this
pressure. The US is the only international actor who speaks up on the issue.[50]

Security Cooperation: “A Handshake over the
Himalaya”

Reflecting China’s foremost concern in Nepal, security
cooperation has grown hand-in-hand with the development of economic ties and
the scaling up of aid and investment. Shortly after the 2008 protests, the
Chinese government submitted a comprehensive security agreement to Kathmandu.
But political instability in Nepal delayed its adoption until August 2011, when
it was reportedly signed on the occasion of the visit by China’s domestic
security chief, Zhou Yongkang, mentioned above.

Various other agreements have been put in place over the
years, covering “intelligence-sharing,” “Illegal
immigration” (which is how China terms Tibetans seeking refuge in across
the border), deployment of additional Nepali Armed Police Forces (APF) at the
border, and training of Nepali police forces:

In July 2009, Nepal’s Home
Ministry announced it had agreed to set up new border security bases along
the Chinese border to “curb illegal activities” at Tatopani,
(Sindhupalchok district), Lomanthang (Mustang), Kimathanka
(Sankhuwasabha), Limi (Humla), and Tinker (Darchula). Each of the new
border security bases is or will be staffed by an Armed Police Force (APF)
squad under the command of a superintendent of police.[51]

In
August 2010, Nepal and China reached a 13-point agreement to establish a
“high-level mechanism to share intelligence and information on
security matters to contain anti-China activities in Nepal.”[52] A senior government official cited by the Kathmandu
Post reported thatChina had assured Nepal of its “full
support to enhance capacity building,” “train Nepali security
personnel to be deployed across the northern border,” and
“seek Nepal’s full commitment on information sharing on
anti-China activities with effective law enforcement mechanism to contain
such activities.”[53]

In November 2010, China held a
two-week security training in Beijing for Nepali security officials,
including officers from Nepal Police and Armed Police Force (APF)
stationed in Rasuwa, Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha, Mustang, and Solukhumbhu as
well as the Chief District Officers of Hanumandhoka, Kaski, and Dolpa. A
spokesperson from the Ministry of Home Affairs said that training was
“part of regular cooperation to bolster the country’s
immigration system.”[54]

In November 2010, Nepal and China
convened a security meeting of senior district officials in Chautara, near
the border. The local Chief District Administrative Officer disclosed that
“the two sides had agreed to tighten the entry of Tibetan nationals
into Nepal and systematize the distribution of temporary entry cares as
part of the 13-point agreement reached between the two sides.”[55]

In December 2010, a six-member
delegation headed by the Chinese director of the Public Security
Department of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) visited Nepal, and offered
to assist Nepal’s security forces being deployed along the
Nepal-China border, stressing “the need to control illegal
immigrants from both sides.”[56]
The delegation met with the Minister of Home Affairs, as well as chiefs of
the Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force, and the National Investigation
Department. The delegation from the TAR offered to provide half a million
yuan (US$80,000) to Nepali security agencies for logistic support. A
Nepali official told the press that the Chinese delegation had
“raised the issues of illegal drug trafficking and human trafficking
across the border.”[57]

In March 2011,General Chen Bingde, head of the Chinese military, conducted a three-day
visit to Nepal during which he signed a military aid package worth US$19
million.[58]

From June 30 to July 14, 2011,
China held a “high-level” training for Nepal security
officials in Beijing, organized by the Ministry of Public Security’s
own university. According the website of the Ministry of Public Security,
the training focused on “striking illegal border exit-entry
activities.”[59]

In August 2011, as noted, Nepal
and China reportedly signed the comprehensive security agreement during
the three-day visit of China’s domestic security chief, Zhou
Yongkang. The agreement covers border security, inter-agency cooperation,
smuggling, trafficking, and “illegal border crossing.” The
agreement also establishes a mechanism for intelligence-sharing and
cooperation between Chinese and Nepali security agencies and border
forces.[60]
The new security agreement was immediately followed by a high-level 8-day
visit of senior Nepali officials to the Tibet Autonomous Region at the
invitation of the head of the Chinese Public Security Border Defense
force. The 29-member Nepali delegation consisted of top officials from the
Ministry of Home Affairs, the Police Armed Forces, the Department of
Immigration, and the civil service.[61]
The visit established “an effective system of repatriation of
illegal immigrants” and aimed to create a “border to border,
point to point, police to police” joint communication and
cooperation “comprehensive mechanism.”[62]

In December 2011, on the occasion
of the visit of Nepal’s deputy prime minister, China’s public
security minister, Meng Jianzhu, expressed China’s satisfaction at
the cooperation between the two countries’ security agencies, and
called for “joint efforts with Nepal to enhance coordination in exit
and entry administration, intelligence and information sharing, and
law-enforcement education and training, in a bid to push forward bilateral
law-enforcement cooperation.”[63]

In January 2012, during Premier
Wen Jiabao’s landmark visit, Beijing pledged, among major economic
and trade deals, a specific financial and technical assistance worth 10
million yuan (US$1.6 million) to “enhance the capacity” of the
Nepal Police. Another technical assistance package of 400,000 yuan (about
US$65,000) was also signed to support the establishment of a new Nepali
Armed Police Force (APF) academy.[64]

In June 2012, China and Nepal met
in Lhasa and reached an agreement to develop district-level mechanisms to
bolster border control and monitoring. Nepal’s delegation included
representatives from the Home Ministry and Foreign Ministry and one deputy
inspector general level officer from the Nepal Police, the Armed Police
Force (APF), and the National Investigation Department (NID).[65]

In July 2012,the two sides
“agreed to develop mechanisms to ensure exchange of information on a
real-time basis and establish effective cooperation between the security
agencies of the two countries to control illegal activities in border
areas.”[66]
Betraying Beijing’s desire to accelerate the implementation of the
2011 security cooperation agreement, China asked Nepal to submit “a
proposal for financial and infrastructure aid required to enforce an
effective security strategy along the Sino-Nepali border to check
cross-border crime.”[67]China
also expressly pressed their counterparts not to hand over to UNHCR
Tibetans caught in Nepal.”[68]

China has made extensive use of
its newly acquired leverage in Nepal, including by directly interfering with
security work. According to a senior diplomat in Kathmandu, officials from the
Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu and Chinese security officers now often play a
role in monitoring and suppressing Tibetan activities.[69]

There is considerable pressure from China
on the Nepali government. Not only from Foreign Ministry or regular diplomats
but also from the party and the military attaché, directly to their
counterparts in Kathmandu. It’s not true that diplomatic protocol [that
requires] going through the Home Ministry and Foreign Ministry is complied
with.The interface between
Chinese and Nepali officials has gone to the local level.

So you have intelligence agents in Chinese
embassy who go directly to area police stations and tell them what to do. There
is no protocol in place about this but it’s being done. It’s at a
very crude level, and local Nepali police resent it. But they are unable to do
anything about it—they get intimidated very easily by that kind of
action. It’s very rude, the Chinese will shout and scream at the local
official.[70]

According to
the same source, the Nepali government finds itself bound by its dependence on
Chinese aid and ever more detailed security agreements:

I give credit to the Nepali government,
they do try to push back against this, but it’s tough at the local level
and at the national level. Nepali government is doing its level best to just do
the minimum that China asks, they do not go out of their way to help China.[71]

V. Nepal’s Forced Returns of Tibetans

Tibetans crossing over from Tibet who are detained inside
Nepal, or who manage to inform relatives or contacts that they are being
detained by Nepali police or border forces, stand a good chance of being
handled according to the Gentleman’s Agreement between Nepal and UNHCR
and making it to India.

But Tibetans arrested when no other witnesses are present at
the border or within Nepali territory are sometimes, perhaps even routinely,
forcibly returned to China by Nepali authorities.

A former senior Nepali Home Ministry official told Human
Rights Watch that local border police have pushed back or repatriated Tibetans
found at or near the border if the Armed Police Force determined that they were
not “legitimate refugees, although no formal process was undertaken to
make such a determination.”[72]

It is true that the armed police are returning Tibetans who
manage to cross the border into Nepal. But we do that according to our national
laws. We check to make sure that each individual who has crossed over is in
Nepal with proper travel documents and that they are not national security
threats or economic migrants. The police at the border make the determination
and return these people back to Tibet. The numbers vary year to year…. We
apply the agreement with UNHCR only if the border police make the determination
that an individual has a legitimate asylum case.[73]

Another senior official who was at the time working at the
Department of Immigration at one of the major crossing points between China and
Nepal also told Human Rights Watch that Tibetans were occasionally forced back
as a result of pressure from China.[74]

Tibetans interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had crossed
the border from Tibet clandestinely at Kodari said that they had to reach
Kathmandu without being caught by Nepali police otherwise they would be handed
back to China.[75]

While Human Rights Watch is not able to corroborate these admissions,
we believe they are credible and require further investigation, not least
because such individuals face a high risk of torture and ill-treatment upon
return to China. On-the-spot decisions by the armed police are inherently
arbitrary, fail to afford individuals the right to make an asylum or other claim,
and violate Nepal’s international legal obligations and the terms of the
Gentleman’s Agreement.

Tibetan refugees interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had
clandestinely crossed the border in the Kodari-Zhangmu area did believe that
they were at risk of refoulement if intercepted by Nepali police, and said they
had taken great precaution to avoid being intercepted before reaching
Kathmandu, avoiding each of the numerous checkpoints on the road.[76]

Threats of Deportation

Police routinely threaten Tibetans during arrest or while
they are in detention with deportation to China. In 2008, nearly all Tibetans
interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had been involved in public protests said
that they had threatened, some of them repeatedly. Most people interviewed
described junior police officers saying, “If you protest tomorrow we will
send you back to China,” or “I will confiscate your Refugee Card
and send you back to China.”

The frequency with which this threat is leveled at Tibetans
suggests it may be a tactic approved or ordered by senior law enforcement
officials. Nepal deputy inspector general of police Bharat Bahadur G.C., in a
wide-ranging interview with Chinese journalists from HuanqiuShibao (Global
Times), said that Tibetans lacking identification “ought to be
deported” but that doing so was not possible “for the moment”
because of pressures from UNHCR:

Under Nepali law, no foreigner has the right to participate
in political activities, including attending demonstrations. Most Tibetans in
Nepal have no legal passport, visa, Nepali ID, or even refugee ID. They are
illegal residents. Actually, we should deport them. We haven’t done that
because of the pressure from the UNHCR. They plead leniency for the Tibetans
and pledge that they won’t join “Tibetan Independence”
activities. So, for the moment we have dropped [the idea of deporting them.][77]

Under the Convention against Torture, Nepal may not deport
anyone to a country where they may face torture. Customary international law
also prohibits refoulement (return of refugees to places where they would face
persecution). Individuals of Tibetan origin who have been protesting Chinese
rule in Tibet would almost certainly be treated as national security suspects
and at high risk of torture and ill treatment if forced to return.

Ongoing Refoulement Concerns

Between 2003 and 2010 there were
only a handful of documented instances of forced returns:

In 2003, Nepali officials transferred a
group of 18 Tibetans, including four children, from Kathmandu to the Chinese
border, and then deported them to China[78];

In 2010, three Tibetans were handed over at
the border to the Chinese police at Hamli, in Humla district.[80]

While there is no public acknowledgement from China that
Nepal forcibly returns Tibetans at the border, Beijing has pushed in recent
years for the formalization with Nepal of a joint-system to handle what it
terms “illegal immigration.” In August 2011, for instance, during a
visit by a 29-member strong delegation of Nepali border security officials to
the Tibet Autonomous Region, the Chinese delegation, headed by a general in the
Public Security Bureau’s Border Defense section, called on the Nepali
side to “establish an effective system of repatriation for illegal
immigration,” and to create a “border to border, point to point,
police to police” joint communication and cooperation system.
Clearly Chinese officials want a heightened surveillance and repatriation
scheme for those they believe to be leaving China irregularly.[81]

According to a detailed report from HURON, in October
2012, Nepali police attempted to forcibly return to China two Tibetans who had
crossed by foot into Himla district and intended to take a flight from Simikot
airport. Police arrested the two men and walked them to a hill two hours in the
direction of the border, ordering them to return to China and warning them that
the police would shoot them if they tried to turn back. The men went into
hiding and ultimately made their way to Kathmandu and the TRTC. Several similar
incidents were reported in 2013.

Until the late 1990s, UNHCR was allowed to access border
areas in remote parts of Nepal. Such missions were used to observe local
conditions and inform local border police of the mechanisms of the
Gentleman’s Agreement set up after 1989. The government of Nepal stopped
authorizing these visits around 1998, apparently out of concern that the UNHCR
might raise the “Tibet issue” in a way that would upset the Chinese
government.[82]
UNHCR has resorted to organizing trainings of border police in other locations.

VI. China’s Treatment of Tibetans at the China-Nepal Border

China’s Refusal of Re-Entry to Some Chinese Citizen
Tibetans

Since 2012, there have been several cases of China refusing
re-entry to its own citizens of Tibetan ethnicity, in effect exiling them in
flagrant violation of domestic and international law. In some cases, the
Tibetans were simply refused entry, and had no choice but to stay in Nepal; in
others they were told by Chinese police that they should go to the Chinese
Embassy in New Delhi and apply for a special permit that allows “Tibetan
compatriots” to re-enter Tibet.[83]
These cases, sometimes followed by periods of detention or imprisonment in
Tibet, appear to be a consequence of a larger policy introduced after 2008
aimed at deterring Tibetans from crossing the border.[84]

China’s closer scrutiny of Tibetans at the border
seems aimed at discouraging Tibetans from attending major events involving the
Dalai Lama, such as the mass Kalachakra teachings, which often draw thousands
of pilgrims.[85]
In late 2011, in an unusual move, the authorities in the Tibet Autonomous
Region (TAR) started allowing large numbers of Tibetans to apply for and obtain
passports so that they could travel to attend the Dalai Lama’s Kalachakra
scheduled for January 2012. About 7,000 Tibetans from China attended the event,
including several hundred who had made their way clandestinely to India.

The true aim of this apparent relaxation only became clear
when hundreds of people were detained upon return to China in February 2012,
regardless of whether they had travelled there legally or not.[86]They
were detained for periods ranging from several days to several weeks, and
forced to undergo interrogation and intensive sessions of political indoctrination.[87]
Some Tibetans who were still in India delayed their return in the hope of
avoiding this fate. Of those who subsequently crossed back into China, a number
were expelled back to Nepal, as detailed below.

In April 2013, Human Rights Watch interviewed a group of 11
Tibetans from Naqu (Nagchu) prefecture, Tibet Autonomous Region, who had been
expelled at the Kodari border crossing and were being held in custody at the
Department of Immigration (DoI) in Kathmandu. According to one of them:

After the Chinese police
caught us when we crossed back into Tibet, we were detained and interrogated
every day for several days. They told us we had broken the law and confiscated
our Chinese ID cards. They also forced us to sign a document written in Chinese
that we didn’t understand. One day, they took us from our cell and put us
in a minibus, accompanied by several cars. They didn’t say where they
were taking us. Suddenly we saw we had arrived at the Friendship Bridge, and we
understood the police wanted to send us back to Nepal. We said no, we said that
we didn’t want to go back to Nepal, that we were from Naqu [in Sichuan
province]. But they just shoved us forward to the Nepali side and into the
[Nepali] immigration building.[88]

There, a Nepali immigration official, who they said spoke
some Tibetan, refused to take custody of the men, pointing out that they were
Chinese citizens and had no travel documents. After some discussion, the
Chinese policemen who had brought the group took them back across the border to
the Chinese immigration compound, and locked them in an underground basement
for several days:

We were detained in an underground place, it was always
very dark. We were very afraid. We didn’t know what was going to happen
to us. For three days we were kept there, and they didn’t let us out for
a single minute. Nobody told us anything, they just gave us some food that we
shared between ourselves.[89]

On the third day Chinese police again took the men back to
the Nepali side of the border, where Nepali immigration officials took them
into custody in an apparently previously agreed procedure. Nepali officials
took a series of pictures of the 11 men, as if documenting their expulsion,
first at the border post, then as they boarded the van in which they were taken
to Kathmandu, and finally as they entered the DoI to be detained. According to
the account given by the group to Human Rights Watch:

The day the police took us out of the basement we resisted
walking over the bridge [to Nepal], we didn’t want to go! But the Chinese
policemen just grabbed us by the neck and forced us across the bridge. Our
families are waiting for us back in Naqu. What are we going to do now? They say
we are going to be sent back to India, but we don’t have money, we
don’t have identity documents anymore. We don’t speak the language,
how can we survive there? We just want to go back to our families in Tibet.[90]

The men were expelled to India several days later after they
were able to raise money in the Kathmandu Tibetan community to pay fines
imposed by the DoI for illegal entry. It is not clear why Nepali officials
accepted custody of individuals who clearly were Chinese citizens, and were
being expelled from China against their wishes, in clear breach of immigration
laws.

Chinese law does not allow banishment through expulsion or
refusal of re-entry, and international law clearly prohibits arbitrary
deprivation of the right of citizens to enter their country.[91]
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets forth that
“no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter their own
country.”[92]
The Human Rights Council General Comment 27, on the freedom of movement, has
reaffirmed:

In no case may a person be arbitrarily deprived of the
right to enter his or her own country... The Committee considers that there are
few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one's own
country could be reasonable. A State party must not, by stripping a person of
nationality or by expelling an individual to a third country, arbitrarily
prevent this person from returning to his or her own country.[93]

To date, several similar, unexplained cases of banishment
from China have been recorded:

In June 2013, Chinese police handed over two
Tibetan men, Pema Choge, 32, and Choka, 25, to their Nepali counterparts at the
border between Humla district and Ngari prefecture. According to the account
they gave to HURON, the two men had travelled from India through Nepal in May,
and had been arrested by the police after walking for five days in the
direction of Ngari.[94]
Chinese police took them to Purang (Burang, Chinese: Pulan), Ngari Prefecture,
where they were interrogated about whether they were members of the Tibetan
Youth Congress and had come back to Tibet to incite people to commit acts of
self-immolation. Police then interrogated the two men separately, taking Pema
Choge to Ali, Ngari prefecture headquarters. Police in Purang interrogated and
tortured Choka, forcing him to stand and denying him food and water for three
days.

After a month in detention in
Ngari, police reunited the two men and handed them over to the Nepali police,
who dispatched them first to Simikot (Humla’s district headquarter) and
then to Kathmandu, in the custody of the Department of Immigration. As the men
were not considered “recent arrivals” Nepali authorities did not
hand them over to the UNHCR but instead deported them to India on June 13.
According to their account, Nepali police in Humla initially refused to take
them from the Chinese police, but ultimately accepted them after “Chinese
police came back with boxes of beer and whisky… and discussed [the
matter] for about an hour.”[95]

On August 23, 2012, Chinese police handed a
group of five Tibetans, aged 24 to 55, to Nepali Immigration Officials at Kodari
border crossing. All the members of the group had been caught by Chinese police
after they crossed back clandestinely into China in April and May, and had been
detained for several months in a detention facility in Shigatse. All of them
except one, who had left China to attend the Dalai Lama’s Kalachakra
teachings in Dharamsala in January 2012, had spent several years living in
India.[96]
Nepal’s DoI fined the five for breaching the immigration laws and sent
them to India shortly afterwards.

China’s unlawful pushbacks of its citizens have
trapped some individuals in a vicious circle of serial expulsions involving
China, Nepal, and India. In one instance, three Tibetans who had left China to
attend the Kalachakra in January 2012 were arrested upon their return to China.[97]
Along with several hundred other people who had attended the teachings, they
were arbitrarily detained for several weeks as punishment and for political
indoctrination, and permitted to return to their home villages.[98]
Shortly thereafter, police arrested them again, detained them for about six
months in Shigatse prison, and then handed them over to Nepali officials at the
border.[99]

The DoI labeled the three as “new arrivals,” and
handed them over to the UNHCR and the TRTC; they were sent to India shortly
thereafter. In April 2013, the three men crossed back into Nepal from India and
made their way to the border with China, only to be arrested by Nepali police
in Namche Bazaar, in Solukumbu district. This time no longer considered as
“new arrivals,” the three men were brought to the Immigration
Department on April 21 and sent back to India the next day.[100]
Human Rights Watch learned subsequently that one or two had returned to Nepal
shortly afterwards, possibly to make another attempt at crossing back into
China.

Abuses in Custody in China

In the wake of the 2008 protests across the Tibetan plateau,
Chinese authorities took active steps to control and limit the movement of
Tibetans through strict enforcement of the internal travel permit (tongxingzheng)
system.[101]
Access to areas bordering Nepal was also tightened, with authorities in the
Tibet Autonomous Region pledging to “expand the anti-separatist and
stability struggle” and establish as soon as possible a long-term
security system.”[102]
For instance the Shigatse Public Security Border Defense Force reported in
March 2010 that the adoption of a host of new measures to enhance border area
control and monitoring had made an important contribution to “smashing
the sabotaging activities from the Dalai Clique.”[103]
These measures included “setting up 22 public order joint-teams”
linking government, police, and militias, as well as ”establishing
motorbike patrols, party members defense teams, and other joint-defense
organizations.”[104]

As detailed in the following section, border control and
prevention of “illegal activities” have become central areas of
China-Nepal cooperation, with China providing the funding and training but also
requesting ever-closer cooperation with the Nepali Armed Police Forces in their
enforcement activities.

Tibetans caught by the Chinese authorities for crossing the
border irregularly from Nepal appear to be uniformly subjected to detention and
imprisonment in abusive conditions. From the moment they are arrested,
detainees are beaten by the police. When they are in detention, interrogators
and guards routinely beat and torture detainees to coerce confessions or obtain
information. Physical abuse, ill treatment, and torture are also used on
detainees for no other apparent purpose than to terrorize them and break them
psychologically.[105]

Under Chinese law, penalties for violating entry-exit
regulations are limited: they range from fines and short term-administrative
detention (between one and fourteen days) to a maximum of one-year imprisonment
(article 320 of the Criminal Law).[106]
More severe penalties apply only to those who organize, transport, or traffic
people (articles 321 and 322 of the Criminal Law).[107] In
the Tibet Autonomous Region, however, the authorities appear to follow a
specific, well-established procedure, designed to punish and deter Tibetans
from going clandestinely abroad and to gather information about the Tibetan
community in exile.

Those caught crossing in either direction by People’s
Armed Police border security—sometimes acting on tips given by
bounty-earning informants in local communities—are briefly detained and
interrogated, and then shipped to Shigatse, either to Nyari prison or to a
special purpose facility for Tibetan immigration offenders set up in the early
2000s, called “Reception Center for Tibetans.”

Police typically beat the detainees on arrival, before
subjecting them to intense interrogation for several days.[108]
Interrogators—many if not most of them Tibetan
themselves—systematically torture and beat detainees as a way to elicit
information. Those questioned are asked to provide information about their
motives for going to India or Nepal, the route they took, and their ties to
“separatist” organizations such as the government-in-exile, the
Tibetan Youth Congress, or exile monastic communities. They are also
interrogated extensively about the activities of the Tibetan community in Nepal
and India, and are required to go through a large collection of computerized
pictures of individuals and events—including protests—from these
places to identify specific individuals or person that they know or recognize.[109]

Unless they are deemed to be of political value or have
prior convictions, in which case they may be transferred to the Public Security
Bureau (PSB) in Lhasa for further interrogation, detainees are held in these
facilities for up to six months, and put to hard labor during their detention.
They are then returned to county-level PSBs in their place of origin,
processed, and released to relatives, most of the time on payment of a large
fine. They are often prohibited from travelling, employment, or rejoining their
monastery if they are monks or nuns; put under some form of surveillance; and
required to report regularly to the local PSB.[110]

In July 2005, Human Rights Watch interviewed a 26-year-old
monk who had been caught with two other friends after returning from India
through Nepal. In his account he described detention conditions in Shigatse and
Nyari prison:

We went via Dram [Zhangmu]. When we reached Shigatse, we
were arrested by police personnel of the State Security Bureau of Shigatse
Prefecture. We were arrested because they discovered pictures from His Holiness
the Dalai Lama when they checked our baggage. We were handcuffed for the whole
night, and beaten severely with stick and electric baton, to the point of
losing conscience. We were severely beaten and asked questions such as:
“Which organization send you here? Is it the Tibetan Youth Congress?
Where do you want to distribute these photos?” We were not allowed to
sleep and not given food for three days.[111]

Police first dispatched him to Lhasa where he was held in
custody for 16 days, and subjected him to three sessions of interrogation
during which he was given electric shocks. He was then sent back to Shigatse,
for detention at Nyari prison:

We were imprisoned there for more than four months. During
that time, we were interrogated many times, during which we were beaten and
poked with electric wires. Machu County Police personnel also came and
interrogated us. Nyari prison is a prison where those trying to escape to
India, those trying to return to Tibet and the local criminals are imprisoned.
During that time, there were more than 300 prisoners. After about four months
of imprisonment, we were taken to the Intermediate People’s Court of
Shigatse Prefecture and sentenced [to two years imprisonment].

There is reason to believe
such mistreatment continues. In December 2013, Human Rights Watch interviewed
in detail a Tibetan man who had been arrested in December 2010. His arrest came
after he had been tricked by a business contact into crossing clandestinely to
China from Kodari. The man, who the Chinese police apparently suspected of
being a member of the Tibetan Youth Congress, was so severely and repeatedly
tortured during his several months of detention that he suffered permanent
physical and psychological damages.

VII. Nepal’s Restrictions on Expression,
Assembly, and Association

Arbitrary Curbs

Since 2008 the government of Nepal has imposed ever-more
stifling restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression and assembly of
Tibetans. The Tibetan community in Nepal has now effectively lost the right to
overtly organize political protests and faces considerable difficulty holding
cultural, social, or religious activities that have an indirect political
dimension, such as celebrating Tibetan New Year or the Dalai Lama’s
birthday.

The Nepali government’s suppression, at the vocal
behest of the Chinese government, of protests by Tibetans in Kathmandu in March
to August 2008 was marked by unnecessary and excessive force, arbitrary and
preventive detention, beatings and sexual assaults in detention, threats to
deport Tibetans to China, and restrictions on freedom of movement for Tibetans
in the Kathmandu Valley. Nepali authorities arrested at least
8,350 Tibetans between March 10 and July 18.[112]

That there has been no repeat of the 2008 protests in
Kathmandu is largely a result of Nepali authorities’ efforts to prevent
such gatherings. As early as mid-2008, Nepali authorities took preventive
action and counter-measures, including, but not limited to:

Posting smaller police forces in front of
key Tibetan locations such as the Jawalakel settlement, the Tibetan Reception
and Transit Centre, and the offices or residences of Tibetan government-in-exile
officials;

Preventively arresting or briefly detaining
of known Tibetan activists;

Pressuring of Tibetan community leaders to
cancel or scale down scheduled gatherings and events;

Conducting police raids on premises where
Tibetan events were being held;

Dispatching plain-clothes officers from the
Special Branch—a body tasked with dealing with major criminal and
national security cases—to the event venues.[113]

Nepal does not deny that it prevents Tibetans refugees from
exercising the right to peaceful expression and assembly. In September 2012,
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, stated:
“We have our own values regarding the policy on refugees, our policies
are guided by geopolitical sensitivities.”[114]

Prohibitions Imposed on Political Protests

The Tibetans we interviewed in Kathmandu and Pokhara in 2012
and 2013 all told us that since the 2008 protests it has become almost
impossible to organize political rallies or gatherings in public places, and
that even events held within Tibetan settlements are tightly restricted by the
police. According to a Tibetan community leader in Boudhanath:

We have completely lost our right to demonstrate now.
Anyone who goes out to protest is immediately stopped by the police. We
can’t even hold public events to celebrate the Dalai Lama’s
birthday, which we always did in the past.[115]

In 2008 I used to go demonstrate every day. Every day I was
arrested, every next day I would come against to protest! We demonstrated in
front of the Chinese Embassy, we demonstrated in front of the UN, we demonstrated
in Bodha, even though the police broke our demonstrations it was still possible
to do it. But now it is impossible, the police will prevent us from going
anywhere.[116]

One resident from the Jawalakel settlement said that ahead
of sensitive political dates, the police systematically station riot police
outside of the settlement to prevent people from coming out and staging or
joining a protest:

We are used to this now. Every March 10, every September 2
[on which Tibetans observe “Democracy Day”], every time there is a
high-level visit from a Chinese official, the police come. The park their
vehicles in front of the settlement, they tell our representatives that it is
prohibited to go out, and they don’t let anyone go out.[117]

The police also regularly take into detention individuals
who engage in activities they regard as political statements of opposition to
China, such as wearing “Free Tibet” T-shirts or displaying posters
of the Dalai Lama, stating that such signs constitute a violation of the Public
Offences Act.

In an incident in June 2011, Deputy Superintendent of Police
(DSP) Shyam Lal Gyawali told AFP that police had to intervene after the Tibetan
exiles sporting headbands and T-shirts reading “Free Tibet” tried
to stage an anti-China protest.

One resident from the Jawalakel Settlement told Human Rights
Watch that she had resorted to tattooing herself to protest the confiscation of
“Free Tibet” material:

They confiscated all my Free Tibet items so I made this
[“Free Tibet”] tattoo. And I want to know what they will do with
it. They will have to cut off my arm because it has “Free Tibet”
written on it? I want to see what they will do with that…[118]

Restrictions on Public and Private Gatherings

The prohibition on Tibetan protests also extends to Tibetans
joining other public and private events. For instance, despite the approval of
the organizers, Tibetans were prohibited from joining a public gathering
organized by Nepali human rights organizations on December 10, 2012, International
Human Rights Day. According to a Tibetan organizer who tried to join the
meeting:

We were planning to join the march with a couple of banners
saying “Human Rights for Tibetans,” nothing more. The morning of
the event I took a taxi with three other friends. Ten minutes later we were
stopped at a small police checkpoint. I think they were looking for us. After
they verified we were Tibetans they detained us and took us to the police
station. We spent the entire day detained at the police station.
Representatives from Nepali human rights organizations came to see us and talk
to the police; they said they could not release us.[119]

In 2010, police warned organizers of a birthday celebration
for the Dalai Lama, in the Jawalakhel settlement compound, that the event
should not be turned into “anti-China activities.” In order to
limit participation, police set up checkpoints throughout the city, pulling
over from buses and taxis with passengers who looked Tibetan. Tibetans and
people lacking identification were ordered to turn back.[120]

One respondent said that this method was regularly employed
to prevent Tibetans and Nepali monks and nuns from Tibetan monasteries from
converging towards Buddha Stupa, a prominent monument in Kathmandu, on specific
dates:

At the checkpoints the police
look for Tibetans or monks: they ask for their identity document and tell them
to step out. There are many check-points on the way so even if you manage to
get through one you end up being caught.[121]

The same respondent said that such controls were affecting
the entire Tibetan community, not only those who intended to join the
gatherings:

As a result lots of Tibetans don’t dare to take
public transportation or go out on these days. It’s better to stay home.
If you have a job it’s a big problem, but there is nothing you can do.[122]

In 2011, the authorities went one step further and
explicitly prohibited the Tibetan community from holding public ceremonies to
celebrate the Dalai Lama’s birthday. The ban was announced by Laxmi
Prasad Dhakal, chief government administrator of Kathmandu district. The
authorities said they would allow celebrations inside monasteries provided
there were “no banners or slogans against China.”[123]
On the day of the celebration, riot police surrounded the elementary school
where the public ceremony was due to take place. Tsewang Dolma, the president
of the Nepal chapter of the Tibetan Youth Congress, told the Associated Press
that “[p]olice officers were there from the early morning, 2 o'clock. We
tried to celebrate, but the police didn't allow anyone inside the gate."[124]
Police also entered the compound of the Samten Ling monastery in Boudhanath and
confiscated posters of the Dalai Lama and a celebratory banner.

Outside Kathmandu, police
have limited where Dalai Lama birthday celebrations can be held. One community
worker in Pokhara’s main Tibetan settlement told Human Rights Watch:

These restrictions are all new. We used to celebrate His
Holiness’ birthday freely here, and we would even have a procession in
Pokhara. Many ordinary Nepali would join, it was a happy occasion. We always
invited Nepali officials to come, and they often came and shared the food. Now
we still invite them but they don't come anymore, and there is a police vehicle
stationed at the settlement entrance.[125]

Community leaders in Kathmandu and Pokhara told of being
repeatedly called by police and officials from their respective Central
District Office in the days and hours that preceded that celebration day.

They call me many, many times. They ask for all sorts of
details: ‘What are you planning?’ ‘How many people are
involved?’ ‘Will you shout slogans?’ Sometimes they ask me to
come to their office. It’s a lot of pressure. I try my best to explain
that we just want to celebrate His Holiness’s birthday, but they impose
all sorts of restrictions: they even asked me not to have pictures of His
Holiness. The ceremony is for his birthday, how can we not have his picture up?

After lengthy negotiations,
we were allowed to hold a small event, only for the local residents of Boddha,
inside our building. Several policemen came, some in plain clothes, to monitor
the event. They stood there, in the room, they took pictures. It feels very
oppressive; we are not doing anything criminal.[126]

The prohibition on gatherings has at times extended to
Tibetan cultural events with no obvious political dimension. For instance, in
October 2011, the police stopped a performance by the local Tibetan Opera
Association (Lhamo Tsokpa), and ordered the performers and the organizers to
cancel the event. The police said they had received instructions from the
Central District Administrative Office.[127]

Tibetan NGOs have become victims of police suspicion about
any kind of Tibetan-themed event. Groups that address community issues, such as
drug-use prevention, education, and women’s rights, say that they have
met with increased difficulties in their operations since 2008.[128]

The leader of a women’s rights organization, which is
supported by, but not part of the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala,
told Human Rights Watch that the restrictions have come at a time when their
services are particularly needed by the community, noting that Nepal’s
refusal to confer legal status on many Tibetans has increased their employment
difficulties and put new stresses on families and relationships.

We used to set up a booth in Boudhanath at special
occasions, where we would do outreach to the community and raise funds for our
activities. But this has become impossible. The police won’t let us do
that anymore. Last time, we just set up a table with some leaflets and a banner
with the name of our organization. Immediately the police arrived and told us
to leave. I tried to argue with them but we had no choice. They didn’t
tell me why it was illegal, but we can’t afford to bring problems with
the authorities to our organizations. So we just packed and left.[129]

A community leader in Kathmandu similarly recounted:

They [the Central District Office] say this is because of
Nepal’s One-China policy, we cannot have anti-China activities. But I
tell them, our activities are peaceful, they are open, we are not breaking the
law. Anyone can come. Nowadays Chinese Buddhists are travelling to hear His
Holiness [the Dalai Lama] teachings in Dharamsala. But they just say: “I
have my orders.”[130]

Pressures on NGOs and Activists Defending Tibetans

The Nepali authorities have also adopted a hard line towards
human rights organizations, lawyers, and NGOs who are working on
Tibetan-related issues or cases.

Sudip Pathak, head of Human Rights Organization of Nepal (HURON)
told Human Rights Watch that the Nepali government was “not giving any
space to discuss the issue” and was always putting pressure on the
organization for its work on Tibetans:

As a human rights organization we have the duty to protect
the refugees who are living in Nepal. But when we stand for the Tibetan refugee
in Nepal, it’s really difficult. Lots of the time, the government
pressures us: “Don’t work for the Tibetans, do not protect the
Tibetans inside the Nepal.”[131]

In meetings with government
officials they tell us: “Why you are supporting the Tibetans? Nepal
supports the One-China policy. So you don’t have the right to protect the
Tibetans in Nepal.”[132]

Pathak also reported anonymous calls and threats made in
apparent connection to challenges brought by HURON on detention cases:

We provide legal representation to Tibetans. And things can
be really difficult. Sometimes we get the anonymous calls made from public
telephone booths, for instance after we make applications [for legal
representation of detained Tibetans] after the police file their First
Information Reports.[133]

The Nepali authorities have also tried to discourage legal
activism on Tibetan cases by portraying lawyers who litigate on behalf of
Tibetans as security risks and “anti-China” elements. Hari Phuyel,
a lawyer and consultant for the International Commission of Jurists, told Human
Rights Watch that such attacks had affected their own security and compromised
their work.[134]

My name, together with Govinda Bandi and Sudip Pathak, has
been mentioned negatively in the press because of our work with Tibetan
refugees and asylum seekers. It was an article in which the Intelligence
Department was interviewed about Tibetan activities in Nepal. We were labelled
anti-China in the article.

After this article appeared, I went to senior people in the
Intelligence Department and asked them why they had published our names, that
it affected our security and compromised our work. They said to me
“It’s not just about you three. We know everything about anyone
connected to Tibet work. This time your names appeared, next time it will be
others.”

Subsequently I had an interview with the Chief Secretary to
the government (Lila Mani Poudyel). I know him well. As soon as I started
raising this issue, he said, “Talk to me about any other subject, do not
talk to me about Tibetans,” indicating that his hands were tied on the
matter.[135]

Govinda Bandi, another prominent human rights lawyer who
litigated several Tibetan cases before the Supreme Court, told Human Rights
Watch that the Chinese Embassy had placed restrictions on his ability to obtain
visas to China as a consequence of his work:

After my name appeared in the article mentioned by Hari
Phuyel. I was denied a visa to Hong Kong. I have spent a lot of time in Hong
Kong, and have never ever been denied a visa, so this was a surprise. I found
out through contacts that the Chinese embassy had blocked my name as a result
of the article and my name being connected to my work with Tibetan asylum
seekers. I managed to get a visa later on, but only after getting letters of
invitation and guarantees from the university, which had invited me, something
I’ve never had to do before.[136]

Negative press coverage of Tibetan issues in Nepali media,
and the publication of stories that allege that Tibetan activists and
monasteries are engaging in activities that are serious national security
threats against China, are also making it more difficult to work on Tibetan
issues.

According to Yubaraj Ghimire, a journalist who has covered
the China-Nepal relationship, the Chinese government is directly involved in
the publication of some of the stories:

I can’t prove it but from talking to journalists and
editors, there is a concerted effort made by China to plant stories—which
are simply not true—in the Nepali press to make the Tibetans look like a
serious national security threat to China.[137]

Because of the negative press coverage of Tibetan issues in
the Nepali media, many organizations are choosing to stay away from the issue,
for fear of jeopardizing their other work. A leading human rights NGO
coordinator told Human Rights Watch:

Working on Tibetan issues is too sensitive and risks
jeopardizing work on other, more mainstream issues. We have discussed taking up
projects on Tibetan refugees but our board members think it would bring too
much difficulties to our work. It could be used by people who oppose our work
for accountability and justice.[138]

Tibet is also a sensitive issue for local politicians.
Siddhartha Gautam, an MP candidate in Lumbini, told Human Rights Watch that his
public pro-Tibet stance had caused him to be placed under investigation by the
police, reportedly at the demand of the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu:

I know that my name is on
the blacklist of the Chinese embassy due to my pro-Tibet activities. I know
this because I have friends in the right places who tell me things. When I
announced my candidacy for MP from Lumbini district, the local police station
went around my village asking for information about me and my activities. This
happened on the directive of the Nepal Department of Investigation who in turn
had been warned about me by the Chinese embassy. This has all been confirmed to
me by friends in the intelligence and police. I am unable to campaign in
Lumbini because I get threatening phone calls, on my mobile, on my home phone;
my family get threats as well. The threats are always about my pro-Tibet work.[139]

Reaction to Self-Immolation Cases

Since February 2009, more
than 120 Tibetans have self-immolated inside Tibet in what appear to be
protests against Chinese policies in Tibet. The Chinese government immediately
blamed the self-immolations on Tibetan “forces” abroad, and
deployed extensive measures to prevent self-immolations from multiplying,
including by bringing criminal charges against relatives and individuals
accused of having helped those who self-immolate; in some cases, such alleged
“accomplices” have been charged with murder.[140]

On November 10, 2011, about a month ahead of a scheduled
state visit to Nepal by China’s then-premier Wen Jiabao, a man only
identified as Bhutuk attempted to set himself on fire in front of the Buddha
Stupa in Kathmandu, a gesture that seemed to echo the dozen or so self-immolations
in protests at Chinese policies that had taken place in Tibet by that time.[141]
The attempt failed, but the Nepali authorities were unable to question the man,
who managed to flee and disappear.

Rather than take steps to discourage suicide or pursue other
legitimate public policy responses, the Home Affairs Ministry responded to this
incident by threatening to take retaliatory measures against the entire Tibetan
community. The Telegraph Nepal reported the Ministry’s
spokesperson as stating:

The government is in a very difficult situation since the
Tibetans have begun setting themselves on fire. The government of Nepal is
committed on its One-China policy. We will not allow any activities that go
against the interest of our neighbors. This will lead to a situation where the
government may have to slash all the facilities being granted to the Tibetans
residing in Nepal, such as that of their freedom to move even.[142]

Following successive
self-immolations by Tibetans in Kathmandu in February and October 2013, the Nepali
government reacted by secretly disposing of the bodies. Both incidents were
followed by a surge in police presence in the area, the questioning of
community leaders and Tibetan activists, and the prevention of public
funeral-related events or activities.

On February 13, Druptchen Tsering, a 25-year-old Tibetan
monk who had recently arrived from China, set himself on fire in from of the
Buddha Stupa. He was taken to Kathmandu Teaching Hospital but died within a few
hours. Police immediately stepped up the security presence in the Boudhanath
area, and issued warnings to the Tibetan community and religious leaders in the
area that they should not use the incident to politically agitate. The
authorities did not accede to the demand by Tibetan community representatives
that the body be handed over for a religious ceremony, and on March 25 had the
body secretly cremated, only informing the clerics of one Tibetan monastery
about the timing of the cremation so that funeral rites could be held in the
monastery.[143]

Some Nepali officials said they were merely implementing
Nepali law, under which next of kin or close relatives have 35 days to claim a
body, after which the authorities can dispose of the remains themselves. But
this provision does not explain why the date and time of the cremation were
kept from the public, especially in light of repeated demands by members of the
Tibetan community to be allowed to organize a ceremony.

On August 5, 2013, Karma Ngedon Gyasto, a former monk who
had escaped to Nepal a few months earlier, set himself on fire at the Buddha
Stupa. He was pronounced dead on arrival at Tribhuvan University Teaching
Hospital.[144]
Immediately afterward, the authorities deployed a heavy security presence in
and around Buddha Stupa, and briefly detained several Tibetan community
representatives for questioning. Seeking to prevent a repeat of the secret
disposal of the body by the authorities, on August 12, the Tibetan Welfare
Office filed an application to the Central District Office of Kathmandu to hand
over the remains to representatives of the Tibetan community for the purpose of
arranging funeral rites. HURON, the International Commission of Jurists, and
other nongovernmental organizations interceded with the authorities as well,
requesting at a minimum the presence of a cleric at the cremation.[145]

On August 31, a public notice was placed in a Nepal-language
newspaper, calling next of kin or relatives of Karma Ngedon Gyasto to claim the
body within seven days. But on the evening of September 2, before the
expiration of that 7 days limit, the authorities had the body cremated. The
timing of the cremation, which took place 27 days after the authorities had
taken custody of the body, violated the legal requirement that any unclaimed
body be kept for a minimum of 35 days. According to HURON, the Chief District
Officer of Kathmandu and several other Nepali government officials left for a
scheduled visit to China at the invitation of the Chinese government on
September 4-5, raising suspicion that the authorities had wanted to dispose of
the body before their arrival in China.[146]

The police subsequently allowed a small ceremony to take
place indoors, on the condition that no political posters or slogans would be
displayed. A small police presence monitored the event but did not otherwise
interfere. Since this second self-immolation case, police have been dispatched
to the Buddha Stupa area on politically sensitive dates.

The authorities’ prevention of funeral-related public
activities violated the Tibetans’ rights to peaceful assembly and freedom
of religion, both guaranteed under Nepal’s Provisional Constitution and
under international law.

VIII. Arbitrary Arrest and Detention

In recent years, the sharp curbs on Tibetan protests in
Nepal have led to a reduction in the number of Tibetans arrested and detained
for participating in “illegal” protests. Nepali authorities, however,
appear to be using short-term detentions, often under the Public Offense Act,
to prevent possible protests, to question activists, or to simply intimidate
the Tibetan community.

Most detentions last less than 24 hours, although they
sometimes extend to several days.[147]
Under Nepali law, persons arrested must be produced before the adjudicating
authority, typically a court or the chief district officer (CDO), the highest
civil servant in each of the country’s 75 districts, within 24 hours of
the detention.[148]
By that point, they must either be charged with a crime or released. Under the
Public Security Act, however, the CDO is allowed to carry out “preventive
detention” for up to 90 days. This can be extended for up to six months
on the simple approval of the Home Ministry.[149]

Most detentions of Tibetan protesters or people suspected of
wanting to protest take place under the Public Offense Act and not the Public
Security Act; as detailed below, the Supreme Court has repeatedly quashed
detentions of Tibetans under the latter. In most cases, the authorities make no
real effort to charge any of those arrested with criminal offenses, suggesting
that the reason for the detention is simply to prevent Tibetans from gathering
or protesting.

Arrests

A Tibetan who lives in the Jawalakel settlement told Human
Rights Watch:

I have been arrested so many times that I have lost count.
Every time the police tell me that we cannot hold our demonstrations because of
China policy. We are guests here we have no rights.

One member of the Tibetan Youth Congress told Human Rights
Watch she had been repeatedly detained without ever being charged with a crime:

Now if there is a Chinese delegation visiting Nepal, the
police just arrest us, without any reason or cause. They just accuse us [of
pro-Tibet activities] and we are arrested. Sometimes they come to our houses in
the middle of the night to arrest us. We wouldn't mind being arrested if we had
broken Nepali law! All our activities have always been nonviolent. Whatever we
do, whether it’s a protest or a hunger strike, we do it in a peaceful
way, respecting the country’s laws and regulations.[150]

In March 2013, Nepali police arrested 18 people in Kathmandu
on suspicion of “anti-China activities” on the eve of the
anniversary of the 1959 uprising. All but three were released on the same day
after having been questioned. The detentions were clearly designed to prevent
any public demonstration in Kathmandu, and were part of what a spokesperson from
the Home Ministry had described a week earlier as “necessary security
arrangements in areas deemed sensitive, to foil any untoward incidents.”[151]

One activist from the Tibetan
Youth Congress was detained preemptively ahead of the visit by a high-level
Chinese dignitary:

The police came to my apartment, four of them, and took me
to the police station. I said, ‘Why are you detaining me? I haven’t
done anything!’ One of the inspectors told me later at the police
station: ‘You know that Nepal abides by the One-China Principle;
that’s why you cannot have your Free Tibet activities here.’ I was
released in the evening.[152]

One volunteer working with
Tibetan refugees told Human Rights Watch police had come to his home in the
middle of the night to arrest him, as a “preventive measure”:

I was sleeping at home with my wife and two children when
the police came to arrest me. It was around midnight. First they just said they
wanted to check some documents, and ask me some questions. One of the police
officers I knew, the two others I didn't, I think they were from CID [Criminal
Investigation Department]. They said they knew I was involved in
“anti-China” activities” and asked if we were planning any
action. After that they took me to the police station. They kept asking the
same questions, whether there was something planned, if I had received
instructions from Dharamsala, and what monasteries were involved.

They kept me all night and then the day after. I was
finally released at the end of the day. After I was released, I learned that
all my colleagues had been questioned too.[153]

Shortcomings
in the Administration of Justice

The extensive restrictions imposed on the basic rights of
Tibetans since 2008 have been greatly facilitated by the general weakness
of Nepal’s legal institutions, the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of
most human rights abuses in Nepal, and a political vacuum resulting from the
political stalemate that followed the establishment of the Constituent Assembly
in 2008.[154]
Nepal’s judicial framework offers few protections for defendants and
victims of abuses and is subject to widespread political interference.[155]

In this context, Nepal’s security agencies, encouraged
by the country’s political authorities and actively courted by the
Chinese government and security organs, have exercised—and at time
abused—their wide-ranging powers to stifle the Tibetan minority without
meaningful checks and balances.

Lack of Judicial Review of the Powers of Chief District
Officers

The wide discretionary powers conferred on CDOs have long
been a human rights concern in Nepal.[156]
The CDO has authority over all government offices in his/her district, with the
exception of courts and defense-related matters.[157]
CDOs supervise and issue orders to the police to maintain law and order and
“tranquility” in the districts.[158]
As such, they are empowered to prevent and disperse gatherings, and to approve
police detentions of suspects, without judicial review.

Many human rights organizations have expressed concerns
regarding the expansive powers CDOs enjoy under the Local Administration Act
(LAA), the Public Security Act (PSA), and the Public Offences Act (POA).[159]

The CDO is the main interlocutor for Nepal’s Tibetan
refugee settlement officers, who depend on CDO offices for the issuance of routine
official documents, authorizations, and decisions necessary for settlement
operations and for the life of the Tibetan community in general. By virtue of
exercising both administrative and security powers, CDOs are in a position to
influence the organization of public events, gatherings, and even the
activities of specific individuals within the community.[160]

The head of a Tibetan community organization told Human
Rights Watch that the Nepali authorities regularly reiterate the prohibition on
any form of political protest by Tibetans:

The CDO and officials from the Home Ministry routinely call
to remind me that any kind of political protest is prohibited. This happens
every time there is a high-level Chinese visitor, or it’s His
Holiness’ birthday, or March 10. They tell me “You’d better
make sure that nothing happens. If there is some ‘Free Tibet’ or
‘anti-China’ incidents you will be held responsible. This is
because our government follows the ‘One-China policy.’”[161]

One elected Tibetan settlement representative told Human
Rights Watch how difficult it had been for him to obtain CDO approval for even
a small nonpolitical public event. As he emphasized:

We cannot function without CDO goodwill and cooperation.
Some CDO officers are understanding towards Tibetans, some are not. Everything
depends on the CDO. We have no rights here, so we have to compromise.[162]

This reality means that Tibetan representatives often must
discourage community members from protesting or organizing protests in order to
protect the larger interests of the community.

We are in a difficult position, having to always justify
limitations that are imposed on us. Especially the young people, they
don’t understand. They tell me, “Why do you listen to the
Nepali?” But I have no choice. If I don’t cooperate, things will be
much worse.[163]

Preventive Detention and Habeas Corpus Rights

The CDO also plays a central role in preventive detentions,
which Nepal’s Interim Constitution allows in situations where a person is
deemed to pose a threat to the sovereignty, integrity, or law and order of the
country.[164]
The Public Security Act (PSA) allows preventive detention of up to 90 days
“to maintain sovereignty, integrity or public tranquility and
order.”[165]
This can be extended for up to six months on the approval of the Home Ministry.
But neither the Interim Constitution nor the PSA clearly states what actions
constitute violating “integrity or public tranquility and order.”[166]

Under section 3(2) of the Public Offences Act and section
6(1)(d) and 6(2) of the Local Administration Act the police do not need court
approval for such detentions, but only a referral from the CDO. The 24-hour
timeframe within which such a referral is supposed to be sought is often
ignored, and police delay recording the time of arrest until they are ready to
have the detention approved or ready to release the suspect.

A detainee can challenge the lawfulness of his detention in
court if he or she is presented before one, or by petitioning the Supreme Court
for a writ of habeas corpus.[167]
The Supreme Court has the power to issue a writ to compel release of detainees
it determines have been arbitrarily detained.

On several occasions, the Supreme Court has ordered the
release of Tibetan detainees:

On July 10, 2011, the Supreme
Court ordered the release of 12 Tibetans after finding that their 20-day
detention was “without reasonable explanation” and
“illegal.” The 12 men had been arrested on June 21 for their
participation in a candlelight vigil in solidary with Tibetans in Tibet.
The court criticized the public prosecutor, the CDO of Kathmandu, and
officers at the Boudhanath police station for having failed to provide an
arrest warrant and a written explanation of grounds for the detention. One
of the detainees alleged that he had been assaulted in detention in an
attempt to force him to confess he was one of the organizers of the vigil.

On March 22, 2010, the Supreme
Court ordered the release of three Tibetans— Sherap Dhondup, Sonam
Dhondup, and Kelsang Dhondup—who had been detained on March 9 and
accused of “posing a threat to the relationship between Nepal and
China.” The Court found that their detention was in violation of the
Public Offense Act, and that the initial detention order of the Kathmandu
District Administration Office was illegal.

On July 8, 2008, the Supreme
Court ordered the release of three Tibetans—Nawang Sangmo, Tashi
Dolma (both Nepali nationals), and Kelsang Chung, who had been held under
Nepal’s Public Security Act (PSA). The court stated that the order
issued by the Kathmandu CDO and the written submission of the Home
Ministry had failed to “show cause” and satisfy the grounds
set forth in the PSA. The detained activists had been sentenced to three
months in prison under the Public Security Act. “There is no basis
for reaching a conclusion that they threatened peace and security just by
chanting slogans,” the judges said in their ruling.[168]

While these habeas corpus cases have been successful, we are
aware of no evidence they have led to a decrease in the Nepali police practice
of detaining Tibetans for short periods of time. There are no effective redress
mechanisms available to Tibetans detained overnight or for short periods of
time.

Moreover, the human rights organizations and lawyers who
helped take these cases to the Supreme Court say that officials tried to deter
them, saying it could lead to harsher measures against Tibetans. As the
president of HURON put it:

Sometimes they threaten us like this: “If [the]
Tibetan community continues to pressure for their activities [in protest at
China], one day we’ll have to tell them ‘you cannot stay anymore in
Nepal.’”

Blacklists
of those to be Detained

As early as March 2008, Nepali police, under Chinese
pressure to suppress the Tibetan protests in Kathmandu, started drawing up
lists of leaders of Tibetan organizations who could be targeted for preventive
arrests. As Human Rights Watch noted at the time:

On March 17, members of the Tibetan community learned from
a reliable source that a list had been drawn up of 11 Tibetans who were current
or former leaders of local Tibetan organizations. Human Rights Watch was
provided with the names of the 11 people on the list. When a senior Nepali
lawyer asked a senior member of the Nepal Police about this list, he was told
that arrest warrants had not been issued for the people on the list, but that
the possibility of preventive detention could not be ruled out. Human Rights
Watch was told by leading figures in the Tibetan community that another five
people were later added to the list.[169]

The list was of particular concern given the government
practice before Nepal’s 2006 Comprehensive Peace Accord of drawing up
“blacklists” of Nepali human rights activists and political
activists, some of whom were subsequently detained or even killed.[170]

The existence of the list was confirmed in 2009 by the
deputy inspector general of police, Bharat Bahadur G.C., who acknowledged not
only that his services had established a list of Tibetan activists, but also
that it had been used as the basis to carry out preventive detentions of
“leaders of Free Tibet organizations” ahead of the anniversary of
the protests in Tibet:

The Tibetan Youth Congress, the Tibetan Women’s
Association, Students for Free Tibet, and other important ‘Free
Tibet’ organizations have branches in Nepal. In the past they were
extremely active. After working on this for a while, the police acquired the
names, addresses and individual details of the leaders of these organizations,
and we also got evidence that they were planning illegal gatherings. In the
middle of the night of March 8 [2009] we carried out a blitz operation
involving over a hundred policemen, arresting 14 leaders of ‘Free
Tibet’ organizations.[171]

One interviewee told Human Rights Watch that being listed by
the police as a Tibetan activist raised the risks of having his rights further
abridged:

Because your name appears on a list, it’s like
you’re considered a criminal already. The police can detain you at will,
and they can always say that it was for security reason.[172]

Preventive detention of individuals featuring on the
police’s list of Tibetan activists has now become a routine occurrence
ahead of politically sensitive dates as well as official visits of high-ranking
Chinese leaders.

Ahead of the state visit of then-premier Wen Jiabao on
January 14, 2012, Nepali authorities launched a comprehensive pre-emptive
clampdown, detaining over a dozen Tibetan activists whose names were on the
list, dispatching several hundred riot police to key Tibetan areas, and
restricting the movements of elected Tibetan community leaders. Police also
detained 114 Tibetans from India who had arrived in four buses, according to a
communiqué by the Nepal’s Metropolitan Police. They were
subsequently handed over to the Department of Immigration and sent back to the
border.[173]

Nepali police implemented similar, although not as
extensive, clampdowns during the three-day visit of Zhou Yongkang, then head of
China’s domestic security apparatus, in August 2011. Shortly after the
visit, the Nepali Home Affairs Ministry instructed the police, the Armed Police
Force, and the National Investigation Bureau to find out the details of
individuals “involved in pro-Tibetan activities.”[174]

Of particular concern among Tibetans interviewed for this
report was the fear that such lists are shared with the Chinese government or
the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu. One Tibetan businessman told Human Rights
Watch that many were worried about potential implications for those who have
relatives in China:

We are afraid that the Nepali authorities share all this
information with China. Many of us have relatives back in Tibet, and we fear
that the authorities there might retaliate against them.[175]

One Tibetan activist who was forced while in custody to sign
a document pledging not to engage in further “illegal” activities
in Nepal was told that four copies of the documents would be made, including
one “for the Chinese Embassy.” It is unclear whether this was true
or was made to intimidate him.[176]

Surveillance

A number of Tibetans
interviewed for this report described having been placed under regular
surveillance. They said they noticed people in civilian clothes watching their
homes or following them on the street. They also reported that relatives,
neighbors, or colleagues had been approached by people working for the police,
asking questions about them. Although the individuals carrying out the
surveillance appear to change regularly, some Tibetans said that from time to
time they recognized those who were watching them. Interviewees also said
they assumed that their telephone call and text messages were monitored.

One former journalist told Human Rights Watch:

There are many Nepali
police, intelligence-types, and informers now. I have often been followed, and
Special Branch officers have questioned people I work with and relatives. I
haven’t done anything wrong, but I really feel Nepal is not safe anymore.
Because why would they do that if not for China?[177]

At times such surveillance is perceived as a form of
intimidation:

This year when I have been meeting with people from human
rights organizations, or diplomats, or even some journalists I have noticed
these people. They don't actually try not to be seen, they will sit right next
to us, or have a motorbike follow the taxi. As a result I have to be a bit
careful about who I meet.[178]

Several locations are under regular police surveillance. In
Boudhanath, residents assume that some of the people joining the daily
circumambulation of the stupa are in charge of monitoring the Tibetan
population, and say that it is better not to talk about anything sensitive
there.

There are also many
plainclothes officers in all sensitive areas, they are constantly watching the
activities of ‘Tibetan pro-independence elements.’[179]

More specifically, he acknowledged a significant increase in
surveillance efforts after the 2008 protests, including deployment of the
Special Branch and use of informers in both the Nepali and Tibetan communities:

We are really getting better
and better at this [intelligence gathering]. Nepal’s police force
has an intelligence department; in the past its main duties were related to
major criminal cases, and had nothing to do with Tibetan issues. After coming
to Kathmandu, I realized that in order to better deal with Tibetan issues, we
needed to rely on powerful intelligence. That is why I ordered the intelligence
department to investigate the situation in Tibetan settlement areas, especially
the illegal activities of “Tibetan pro-independence elements.” Now
this force has already infiltrated all these areas, and they are gathering information
from local Nepali citizens as well as from ordinary Tibetan people. The results
are obvious and the intelligence department coordinates efficiently with the
actions of the police.[180]

Photographs and Video

Like many other police forces around the world, Nepali
authorities have started systematically videotaping gatherings in public spaces
and police operations. Many Tibetans detained during or after the 2008 protests
reported having their photos taken or being filmed,[181]
and concerns about being photographed or filmed have become more acute since
the formal announcement of the Intelligence-Sharing Agreement between Nepal and
China in 2010.

One Tibetan community leader told Human Rights Watch:

Earlier this year we were allowed to conduct our meeting,
but the police were standing there at the entrance, and there was someone
filming every person coming in or out.[182]

Surveillance cameras have been installed in Boudhanath, and
especially around the Buddha Stupa. The surveillance system was set up in two
stages. In late 2011, the Boudhanath Development Office, a semi-official
business promotion body, installed about 20 cameras around the stupa,
officially “to monitor crime,” and not “for the purpose of
curbing friendly Tibetan activities.”[183]

In July 2013, the Metropolitan Police commissioner announced
that as part of an “Integrated Security System” a total of 35
“state-of-the-art” surveillance cameras with night-vision had been
installed around the Buddha Stupa and on the road connecting Kathmandu’s
ring road to Boudhanath, as part of a “Integrated Security System”
installed at a cost of around Rs 2.5 million (US$25,000). Under this scheme the
surveillance cameras installed around the Buddah Stupa were upgraded and
connected to the Metropolitan Police Circle control room. Officials said the
cameras would “monitor all public activities, including traffic movement
and movement of pedestrians and devotees thronging the stupa for
rituals.”[184]

Tibetan residents and visitors expressed concern when the
first set of cameras were installed, saying that the footage could be used to
identify refugees, activists, or Tibetans visiting legally from China, who
could then be at risk upon their return to China.[185]
Those concerns persist:

There are cameras everywhere
around here now. How can we have any guarantee about how these images are used?
In Lhasa there are cameras everywhere, and now I fear that Boudhanath is going
the same direction. For all we know, the Chinese police could be sitting in
Lhasa watching us as we speak.[186]

Tibetans detained in China
after going abroad, legally or otherwise, have consistently reported being
shown pictures of individuals and asked by Chinese police to identify them.
Concerns that the Nepali authorities might be sharing photographs and video
recording of Tibetans living in Nepal has induced fear in the Tibetan
community, many members of which have relatives across the border in Tibet.
Some Tibetan activists from India have also reported being turned away at the
border after border agents recognized them from photos.

Inadequate Police Protection from Anonymous Threats

Most individuals exercising public responsibilities in the
Tibetan community, such as NGO leaders, representatives of the Dalai Lama or
the Central Tibetan Administration, settlement officers, or volunteers at the
Tibetan Reception and Transit Centre (TRTC), told Human Rights Watch they had
received anonymous threats. These threats are often made through anonymous
phone calls, or delivered through third parties conveying vague “advice”
and “warnings” about the personal risks involved if they continue
their activities on the behalf of the Tibetan community.

The head of the Tibetan Welfare Office, the unofficial
representative of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Central Administration, told
Human Rights Watch:

After I took the position I started receiving all sorts of
threats. People calling my phone and saying I should be careful because
it’s very easy to attack me, or to kill me. They say things like
‘if you don’t stop, we’ll take care of you’. Sometimes
they speak Tibetan, sometimes Nepali. What can I say? There is nothing I can do
about it, so I just ignore it and carry on.[187]

The leader of a Tibetan youth group reported receiving
similar threats:

I receive threats all the time. People call and they say,
‘We know where you live, at such and such address, you’d better be
careful. Stop your activities.’ But it doesn’t deter me. Sometimes,
if the caller is Tibetan, I reply to them: ‘You are Tibetan too, aren’t
you ashamed to do this dirty work? Why are you hiding, making anonymous calls
like that? Come and meet me if you have something to tell me.’ Sometimes
that really angers them and they start insulting me. I knew for sure that if I
undertook this work, I would receive that kind of threat.[188]

One interviewee with responsibilities for Tibetan asylum
seekers who have just arrived from Tibet said that such threats had to be taken
seriously.

Now I am extra careful when I drive my motorbike.
It’s very easy to arrange an accident; a car runs over me and then what?[189]

A correspondent for a Tibetan news outlet told Human Rights
Watch that such threats were effective in deterring people in the community
from assuming positions of responsibility:

There is already a lot of
pressure on the Tibetan community. Families are afraid of the consequences if
their son or daughter gets involved in Tibetan activities, they know that it is
dangerous work. Even the business people, they are afraid that there may be
consequences if they take a high-profile position.[190]

All Tibetans who described to
Human Rights Watch having received anonymous threats said they felt it was
futile to report the threats to the police. They said they believed the police
would refuse to investigate complaints because they could not prove who was
threatening them. They also said they believed the police would not undertake
serious investigations because the police themselves were actively engaged in
suppressing Tibetan activities.

One interviewee in Kathmandu
explained that it would be “a waste of time” to turn to the police:

If I go to the police they will ask me to show some
evidence. But the calls are always anonymous; the caller-number doesn't appear,
so how could I prove anything? Even if they were to register my complaint, they
still wouldn't do anything about it.[191]

Another respondent said that the police knew about the
pattern of intimidation and threats but never offered to investigate or to
provide protection:

I am meeting regularly with the police. They call me, they
question me, they ask to meet, and I have been detained many times. They know
exactly what my situation is. If they wanted to investigate or find who called
me it would be very easy for them.[192]

Individuals told Human Rights Watch that people without
proper identification are even less likely to report threats because they fear
police may fine, arrest, or deport them.

IX. Other Restrictions on Tibetans in Nepal

Most Tibetans in Nepal also continue to face a host of
restrictions on movement within and outside Nepal, problems finding or
retaining jobs, and a ban on property ownership. Many of these restrictions are
due to Tibetans’ lack of legal status or their inability to obtain documentation
of their status.

Identity
Documents and Residency Rights

The Nepali government stopped allowing newly arrived
Tibetans to settle in Nepal after 1989, following a diplomatic rapprochement
with China. The overwhelming majority of Tibetans who arrived in Nepal after
this date have proceeded to India in line with the terms of the
Gentleman’s Agreement. Others, unable or unwilling to go or to stay in
India, have remained in Nepal, but vulnerable to threats and exploitation
because of the lack of legal documentation.

While the government allowed Tibetans who arrived before
1990 to remain in Nepal, it did not recognize them as “refugees” in
the full legal sense of the word, even though it issued them identity documents
called “Refugee Certificates”[193]
and even though Nepalis commonly refer to them as refugees.

“Refugee Certificates” (RCs) provide such
pre-1990 arrivals a modicum of protection, including “the right to reside
in Nepal” and to move freely within the country, with the exception of
some restricted areas. The police and the authorities generally accept the RCs
as valid proof of identity and residence. However they do not, as mentioned
above, entitle their holders to own property, gain official employment, or
access higher education. While these restrictions were somewhat easily
circumvented in the past, they have become much more strictly enforced recent
years. Under the terms of the interim Constitution, RC holders are not
guaranteed freedom of expression and assembly, which are specifically limited to
citizens.

Between 1995 and 1998, the Nepali government stopped issuing
new RCs to children of Refugee Certificate holders when they reached the age of
16. As a result, Tibetan children who had not yet reached this age by
1995-1998, as well as those born after 1998, have been unable to obtain any
form of official identification from the Nepali state. For a time, the last
tenuous proof of identity for those born after the government stopped issuing
RCs was a mention of their birth on their parent’s RCs, but that, too,
was discontinued in the early 2000s.

In effect, Tibetans born in Nepal after the government
stopped issuing RCs have been rendered stateless and, from the perspective of
Nepali law, their continued residence in Nepal is entirely at the discretion of
Nepali authorities. For the government of Nepal to issue the children of
pre-1990 refugees identification documents would present no logistical or
practical difficulties, be consistent with the pre-1989 decision to allow
Tibetan refugees to settle in Nepal, and avoid violating the principle of
maintaining family unity.

Citizenship

With very few exceptions Tibetan residents are barred from
applying for Nepali citizenship. Before 2006, it was technically possible for
Tibetans to become Nepali citizens, although this was actively discouraged by
the government. The largest wave of nationality acquisition took place in the
1970s when King Mahendra offered a special kind of citizenship, called angrikta,
to about 1,500 former US-backed Tibetan guerrilla fighters who had settled down
in Nepal.[194]Angrikta holders enjoy full citizenship rights. Subsequently, the Nepali
government carried out a program to grant citizenship to hundreds of thousands
of inhabitants of the Himalayan regions, and some Tibetans were able to take
advantage of the program and acquire regular citizenship or nagarikta.

In 2006, Nepal adopted the Citizen Act, which provides that
“any person born before [April, 13, 1990] within the territory of Nepal
and having domiciled permanently in Nepal shall be deemed a citizen of Nepal by
birth.” However, this provision does not apply to children of Tibetan
refugees, who are considered to have inherited the refugee status of their
parents. As a result Tibetans can acquire Nepali citizenship only through
descent, if one of their parents already holds Nepali citizenship, or if a
Tibetan woman marries a male Nepali citizen. Tibetan men cannot obtain
citizenship by marrying Nepali women. The Citizen Act limits naturalization,
under certain conditions, to “foreigners,” and therefore does not
apply to Tibetans.

Because non-citizen residents are barred from owning
property, an almost insurmountable hurdle for many entrepreneurs, over the
years some Tibetans resorted to acquiring Nepali citizenship through illegal
means, such as the submission of fake documents and the payment of large
bribes. Most successful Tibetan entrepreneurs belong to the generation that was
able to obtain citizenship legally. Yet, as detailed in the next section, they
too are denied the rights, in particular the political rights, of regular
citizens, on the basis of their ethnicity and identity.

It should be noted that lack of citizenship identification
is a widespread problem in Nepal. An analysis conducted by the non-governmental
organization Forum for Women, Law & Development in April 2013 estimated
that over 4.3 million people were without citizenship identification in Nepal.[195]

Freedom of Movement within Nepal

Refugee Certificate holders are guaranteed freedom of
movement within Nepal, with the exception of “restricted
areas”—mostly remote areas along the border with China—if
they do not reside there.

However, since 2008, a growing number of Tibetans holding
valid Nepali identification documents have complained that they receive
increased scrutiny when traveling. At police checkpoints, they claim,
they are viewed with more suspicion than before, and, if travelling by bus, are
often pulled aside from the other passengers for questioning. “They
say things like ‘it’s not valid,’ or ‘this is not a
proper ID.’ We have to explain, to plead. The other passengers who are
being held up resent us Tibetans. It’s really a way to intimidate
us,” one interviewee told Human Rights Watch.

At times, the police appear to be under instructions to
identify Tibetans among Kathmandu-bound travelers and ensure they are not
traveling to participate in “political activities” such as
gatherings or protests. “They [the police] checked our bags, looking if
we had any free Tibet material, like flags, T-Shirts, etc.,” another
interviewee told Human Rights Watch.[196]

Tibetan residents who do not have Refugee Certificates face
more harassment and intimidation than RC holders. The main objective of the
police often seems to make sure that they are residents and not recent arrivals
from Tibet or activists from India—a test that most of the time can be
satisfied with producing a photo ID document such as a driver’s license
or other proof of residence. But this increases the opportunity for bribe
seeking. Several Tibetan interviewees expressed concern that the amount they
had to pay has increased dramatically since 2008. “It used to be no more
than a few hundred Rupees,” one Pokhara resident told Human Rights Watch.
“Now, it is as high as a few thousand. It makes travelling very difficult
for us.”

The biggest restrictions on movements apply within
Kathmandu, due to the heightened attention to the Tibetan population there by
the police. Tibetans living in Boddha and other areas in and near Kathmandu
with a concentration of Tibetan residents complain of thorough identity checks,
especially at night. All interviewees said that obtaining bribes seem to be one
motivation for the police. “Before 2008 I used to often wear traditional
Tibetan clothing,” one Tibetan woman told Human Rights Watch. “I
don’t do that anymore, because the police will immediately stop you [to
check your identity].”

As a result of these
increased controls, many young Tibetans who lack identification have resorted
to a self-imposed curfew. “The civil war is over, right? Yet we have more
police control than ever before!” one respondent from Boddha told Human
Rights Watch. One restaurant manager said he preferred sleeping in his
restaurant during politically sensitive periods rather than risk police checks
on his journey back to his home in the periphery of Kathmandu.

On November 13, 2011, after the incident described above in
which a monk attempted to set himself on fire in front of the Buddha Supa,
Nepal’s Home Ministry spokesperson told the Rajdhani Daily :

The government is in a very difficult situation since the
Tibetans have begun setting themselves on fire. The government of Nepal is
committed on its One-China policy. We will not allow any activities that go
against the interest of our neighbors. This will lead to a situation where the
government may have to slash all the facilities being granted to the Tibetans
residing in Nepal, such as that of their freedom to move even.”

The newspaper reported that the spokesperson had also made
it clear that the government “may decide to put a ban on their business
activities and their free movement.”

Such statements have generated fear within the Tibetan
community that the government may not only continue to restrict the freedom of
movement of undocumented Tibetans born in Nepal, but also of Refugee
Certificate holders.

International Travel

By law Tibetan residents are not entitled to obtain a Nepali
passport. To travel internationally, Tibetans must apply for a travel document.
The travel document issued is usually valid for one year. The issuance of such
a document is discretionary, and applications are considered on a case-by-case
basis. To qualify for a travel document, an applicant must present a valid
Refugee Certificate and documents detailing the purpose of the trip, and must
pay a fee. Bureaucratic red tape and pervasive petty corruption make the
process lengthy and uncertain. Tibetans who do not have RCs are not eligible
for such travel documents.

As one Refugee Certificate holder told Human Rights Watch:

Last year I applied for a travel document to visit my
relatives abroad. I cannot get a passport so I have to obtain a travel document
from the Department of Immigration. Even though I had all the documents
requested, I had to pay a bribe, otherwise the officials will not even look at
your application.

Travel to India

Before 2001, Tibetan residents were able to travel to India
freely, as Nepali citizens do under the “open border” arrangement
between India and Nepal. Since the adoption of new Nepali legislation in
October 2000, Tibetan residents are required to obtain a travel document to do
so. Until 2005, border immigration officials were generally satisfied when
presented with a letter of recommendation from the Office of the Representative
of the Dalai Lama. However, after the Office of the Representative of the Dalai
Lama was denied re-registration in 2005 (even though, as noted below, it was
allowed to reincarnate as the Tibetan Welfare Office in the same location)
Nepali officials stopped accepting these letters as valid travel documents.

For many years in practice crossing overland to or from
India was a process negotiated with immigration officers of both countries at
the border, and subject to a payment of a bribe of a variable amount. Crossing
was rarely refused if the person can produce some form of identification, such
as a Refugee Certificate, a driver’s license, or a school ID.[197]
Even Tibetans without any form of documentation were generally able to cross
the border, although they were liable to be turned away, fined, forced to pay a
bribe, see their goods confiscated, or delayed.

Because of difficulties
obtaining travel or identity documents, some Tibetans have resorted to buying
or faking them. This has had the unintended effect of bringing under suspicion
those who hold genuine documents, who end up enduring the same types of
administrative frustration and demands for unspecified “fees”
endured by those without documents.

Tibetans interviewed for this report say it has become
increasingly difficult for them to travel to or from India in recent years:
arbitrary fines, solicitation of bribes, confiscation of goods, and
administrative harassment are becoming more and more severe, making the journey
increasingly daunting. Delays and even detention—mostly as a way to
extract fines or bribes—are becoming more frequent.

The Nepali government may have legitimate reasons to
implement stricter border controls, but it appears that Tibetans are the only
group systematically pulled aside by Nepali border guards. Nepal police are
eager to prevent Tibetan activists from India from entering the country and
carrying out political activities, and seek to prevent Tibetans who have
transited or previously been expelled from Nepal from coming back. As a result,
the police increasingly try to limit the passage of persons lacking
identification. This effort, however, is frustrated by the lack of avenues for
bona fide travelers to obtain the required documentation.

Children of Tibetan residents
in Nepal, many of whom study in Tibetan boarding schools in India, face
particular challenges. The overwhelming majority of the children do not have
Refugee Certificates, much less travel documents, due to the decision of the Nepali
government to stop issuing RCs to them in the mid-1990s. At the beginning of
the school term, chartered buses bring these children to schools in India, and
they return to Nepal in the same way at the end of the term. While in the past
immigration officials were satisfied with documents showing enrolment and the
payment of a small fee, in recent years the crossing has become more difficult.
In one case, the police detained some children travelling on a chartered bus
until an appropriate “fine” was negotiated. This situation has generated
great anxiety among Tibetan parents interviewed for this report, who stress
that the foremost reason for them to send their children to India is the lack
of viable educational options for their children in Nepal, given that they are
not entitled to enroll in Nepali public schools and the families often do not
have sufficient financial means to enroll them in private schools.[198]

Tibetan refugees also say that the increasingly strict, if
erratic, behavior of Nepali immigration officials has induced their Indian
counterparts to also start pressing Tibetan travelers for higher bribes and
fees.

Property and Employment

Housing

Tibetans who lack Nepali
citizenship have no right to own property, including land, houses, offices, and
vehicles (except motorbikes, see below). With a couple of exceptions, the land
on which Tibetan settlements have been established is owned by the Nepali Red
Cross, which holds it in trust for their residents. Tibetans living outside of
the settlements generally rent their accommodation from Nepali citizens or
Tibetans who have Nepali citizenship.

Housing difficulties in the Kathmandu area have increased in
recent years. In the settlements, the main problem is scarcity of available
living space, so two or three generations of a family often share
accommodations not designed for so many people.

Outside of the settlements, the main difficulty has been the
substantial increase in rents. Kathmandu’s construction boom over the
past decade has reached once peripheral areas where Tibetan communities have
traditionally clustered, such as Boudhanath and Swayambu. The resulting price
hikes, especially when combined with limited economic and income-generating
opportunities for the younger generation, are putting a growing strain on poor
and medium-class families.

To secure accommodations and
obtain business premises, Tibetans have long resorted to making arrangements
with citizenship holders—ethnic Tibetan or Nepali—in whose name
property can be registered. But the increased administrative monitoring of
Tibetans and Tibetan-owned businesses in recent years is making these types of
arrangements more difficult to maintain or to set up. Tibetans say that Nepali
landlords are increasingly wary of fronting or renting property to a population
that they know is under political scrutiny by the authorities.

Employment

Non-citizen Tibetans with Refugee Certificates traditionally
have sought jobs in the settlement camps as camp staff or local business
employees, or outside the camps either in the tourism, food, religious
artifacts, and carpet industry sectors or as self-employed tourist guides,
hawkers, etc.[199]
As non-citizens, they are not eligible for government jobs.

In recent years, moreover, employment opportunities have
dwindled. The carpet industry has drastically declined, with most
factories—once Nepal’s top export—closing over the past
decade. The settlements’ own businesses—often carpet and souvenir
manufacturing—have significantly declined. Tourism and trekking guide
licenses are formally limited to citizens, as is owning or registering a
business.[200]

The situation is even worse for Tibetans born since 1990,
after Nepal stopped issuing RCs. Many Tibetan youth find that they qualify for
jobs but cannot obtain them due to their lack of citizenship. Nepali companies
are reluctant to hire staff who lack valid identification documents, and who
are increasingly perceived as belonging to a group held in suspicion by the
state. And because of the commonly shared perception in Pokhara and Kathmandu that
the Tibetan community is wealthy by Nepali standards, they receive little
sympathy from Nepali society at large.

An increasing number of families are seeing emigration for
their youngsters as the only path ahead, but it is beyond the reach of the poorest
and least-educated segment of the population. Combined with what many perceive
as increased pressure on their community from the state, at the behest of
China, many are discouraged and have delusions about their prospects in the
country.[201]

The inability of an entire generation of Tibetans born in
Nepal to earn a livelihood should be of concern to the Nepali state, yet there
has been no official acknowledgement or response to the situation.

Motorbike Ownership and
Driver’s Licenses

Motorbike ownership has always been an exception to
Nepal’s ban on property ownership by RC holders, a reflection of the
essential role of this mode of transportation in everyday life, both in the
settlement areas and in the Kathmandu valley. Until 2011 Refugee Certificate
holders were entitled to apply for and to renew driver’s licenses without
difficulty. Even applicants without RCs managed to obtain driver’s
licenses as long as they could demonstrate that they were residents.

In early 2011, the Department of Transport Management in
Kathmandu modified the application requirements, and stopped accepting RCs as
substitutes for citizenship certificates. All RC holders in the Kathmandu
valley were suddenly unable to renew their licenses, living them with the
choice of abandoning this mode of transportation or taking the risk of driving
without a valid license.

“I’ve never had any problem renewing my
license,” a Tibetan resident of Kathmandu told Human Rights Watch.
“Then suddenly I was told at the [Transportation] Department that they
would not accept my RC for the application. Normally you can always
‘arrange’ things [pay a bribe] but in this case it was just
impossible. So I feel this must be a move against us Tibetans.”

In reality, the tightening of the driver’s license
application process seems to have come as a result of efforts to reign in
corruption in the Transportation Department. But the government has been
unreceptive to the need for flexibility when it comes to RC holders, and at
times has denied there has been any change.

“I talked to the CDO, and to the Home Ministry, and to
the Transportation Department: I told them this was creating lots of
difficulties for Tibetan families,” a Tibetan community leader told Human
Rights Watch. “But they all said that it was not their responsibility,
and that they couldn’t do anything about it. This really places us
[representatives] in a difficult situation, that we cannot resolve such a
pressing problem.”

Beyond giving holders the right to drive motorcycles, driver’s
licenses play an important role as proof of identification for Tibetans,
especially for those lacking RCs, and the inability to renew them has had a
severe impact on many Tibetan families in the Kathmandu valley. Outside of
Kathmandu, Tibetans we spoke with say they have had no difficulties renewing
driver’s licenses, and some Kathmandu drivers have had their licenses
renewed in Pokhara, or even have resorted to acquiring fake licenses.

All such solutions come at a price, and at a risk. One shop
employee in the Boudhanath area said that his daily commute had become “a
nightmare”:

Now, I drive without a license, so I’m always afraid
I’m going to run into a checkpoint and have the police control me.
I’m Tibetan, I don’t have a Nepali identity document, so it’s
even more problems if I’m stopped. Every day I worry about being
controlled by the police, that I will be late for work or I will have to pay a
lot of money if it happens. This is no way to live.[202]

X.
Recommendations

To the Government of Nepal

On Border Security and Forced Returns

Immediately
stop forcibly returning to China Tibetans unless their right to seek
asylum is protected, including those rejected at the border or apprehended
in Nepal.

Strictly
uphold and respect international law prohibiting refoulement.

Cooperate
fully with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) to facilitate its mandate to protect refugees, asylum seekers, and
stateless persons. Establish and maintain a strong and effective working
relationship with UNHCR, including by having UNHCR train relevant
officials and allowing UNHCR to resume systematic border monitoring
visits.

Call
on China through diplomatic channels to reverse course when its
authorities or agents refuse to allow Tibetans to reenter China or expels
its nationals to Nepal.

On Refugee Status

Issue RCs, as
appropriate, to Tibetans who fled to Nepal after 1989 and are unable or
unwilling to go to India to lodge asylum claims.

Ease
renewal modalities and issue refugee certificates to eligible Tibetans as
well as to their dependents (spouse and children).

Ratify the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Adopt
implementing legislation immediately after ratification.

Enact
legislation to establish a formal asylum procedure for Tibetan asylum
seekers who have entered Nepal since 1989. Define and guarantee the rights
and status of refugees and asylum seekers by law in accordance with
internationally recognized human rights standards.

Implement
Nepal’s obligation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to
provide children with the means to acquire a nationality.

Repeal the
present restrictions on the rights of Tibetan residents to own property, work,
establish and incorporate businesses, and travel freely.

On Respecting the Rights of Assembly, Association, and
Expression

Protect the rights of all persons in Nepal
to freedom of expression and assembly, regardless of legal status, and cease
dispersing peaceful protests by Tibetans.

Take all actions necessary to end arbitrary
arrests, including unlawful and preventive arrests, of Tibetans and others
engaged in peaceful political activity or otherwise going about their daily
lives.

Do not permit Chinese law enforcement
personnel to unlawfully operate in Nepal.

Ensure respect for freedom of movement
without discrimination, including by issuing orders to local officials to end
arbitrary restrictions on the movement of Tibetans in Kathmandu Valley based on
their nationality or ethnicity.

Take all steps necessary to ensure that the
Nepal police respect Tibetans’ right to protest peacefully. End
harassment of protesters, including threats of deportation or other dire
consequences should they participate in future protests.

On Preventive Detention and Powers of Chief District
Officers (CDOs)

The preventive detention
provisions of the Interim Constitution of Nepal and the Public Security
Act should be amended to ensure that:

Preventive detention is
permissible only under exceptional circumstances as provided under
international law;

The time period is strictly
limited;

There is judicial oversight of
each detention in accordance with article 9 of the ICCPR.

Introduce legislative amendments
to ensure that the wide discretionary administrative powers of the CDO,
conferred under provisions of existing security laws, are subjected to
effective judicial review. Specifically, the Local Administration Act, the
Public Security Act, and the Public Offences Act should be
amended to ensure that all judicial powers are vested in judicial bodies, not
the CDO, in accordance with separation of powers principles, article 14(1)
of the ICCPR, and principle 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence
of Judiciary 1985.

On Citizenship

On Livelihood Issues

Repeal restrictions on the rights of Tibetan
residents to own property, work, establish and incorporate businesses, and
travel freely.

Support the identification and
implementation of durable solutions for Tibetan refugees in Nepal.

To the Government of
China

Immediately end the torture
and other ill-treatment of Tibetans arrested for having crossed or
attempting to cross the border without proper documentation.

End restrictions on
Tibetans who wish to obtain passports and travel abroad.

Allow re-entry to all
Tibetans who are PRC citizens.

End pressure on the
government of Nepal or individual Nepali officials to engage in policies
or take measures that are in contradiction with international human rights
and refugee law.

Allow all citizens of
the PRC, regardless of ethnicity, to obtain passports to leave and reenter
the country. The only exceptions should be people facing valid travel
restrictions or currently under investigation for crimes, and only if
those restrictions and crimes are cognizable under international law and
defined in a manner consistent with human rights standards.

To the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Nepal (UNHCR)

Urge the government of Nepal to cease
forcibly returning Tibetans to China and to adhere to the terms of the
Gentleman’s Agreement, which prohibits refoulement in line with
international law.

Urge the government of Nepal to issue
identity documents to Tibetan residents.

Provide technical assistance and advice to
the Nepali government in drafting domestic legislation intended to ensure
refugee protection and to avoid and reduce statelessness.

Urge the Nepali government to ratify the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, the
1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, and the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and to make it a priority to
adopt relevant implementing legislation.

Work with foreign governments to promote and
facilitate the third-country resettlement of Tibetan refugees in appropriate
cases, such as refugees who need to be resettled for protection reasons, for stateless
Tibetans with ties to third countries, or for refugees for whom other durable
solutions are not feasible in the foreseeable future.

Regarding Tibetan Residents of Nepal

Assist the Nepali government in formalizing
a procedure for the issuance of fraud-proof RCs and travel documents for all
resident Tibetans.

Urge the Nepali government to repeal
existing discriminatory restrictions on the rights of Tibetan residents to own
property, work, establish and incorporate businesses, and travel freely.

Regarding Tibetans in Transit through Nepal

Encourage and provide assistance to the Nepali
government in creating an information sheet for distribution to all border
police and immigration patrols explaining their obligations under the Gentleman’s
Agreement.

Renew and emphasize UNHCR’s request to
the Nepali government to permit its staff, and qualified non-governmental
organizations willing to lend assistance, to resume border missions to educate
border police on the terms of the Gentleman’s Agreement and relevant
international human rights standards. Take steps to reassure the Nepali
government that such missions will be carried out in a low-profile manner that
will not interfere with its diplomatic relationship with China.

Issue documentation to all Tibetans new
arrivals found to be “of concern” such that, should they
subsequently seek asylum in third countries, they possess proof of
UNHCR’s finding that they are “of concern to the High
Commissioner,” their date of arrival in and departure from Nepal, and
their birthplace.

To Donor Governments

Press Nepal to ratify the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

Press the government to comply
with its international legal obligation of nonrefoulement.

Urge the government to cooperate
with the efforts of UNHCR and concerned governments to protect the rights
of Tibetan refugees.

Urge Nepal immediately to issue
RCs to all Tibetan residents eligible for them.

Make clear that Nepal’s
official position that Tibet is an integral part of China is not
inconsistent with recognition that Tibetans may face persecution there,
making them eligible for refugee status or asylum under international law.

Work with the Nepal government and UNHCR to
promote and facilitate the third-country resettlement of Tibetan refugees in
appropriate cases, such as refugees who need to be resettled for protection
reasons, for stateless Tibetans with ties to third countries, or for refugees
for whom other durable solutions are not feasible in the foreseeable future.

Production assistance was provided by Julia Bleckner,
Shaivalini Parmar, and Storm Tiv, associates in the Asia division; and Kathy Mills, publications specialist.

Human Rights Watch is especially grateful to external
reviewers who wished to remain anonymous for their assistance and comments on
earlier versions of the report.

Above all Human Rights Watch wishes to express its thanks to
the interviewees who spoke despite considerable personal risk and fear, and
acknowledges the dedicated efforts of the interviewers, interpreters, and
translators who made this report possible.

Appendix I

Appendix II

Translation of Huanqiu Shibao Interview with
Nepal’s Deputy Inspector General of Police

Original article: "专访尼泊尔警察副总监：“藏独”在尼闹不起来", 环球时报,
2009/03/29.

"Exclusive Interview with Nepal's Deputy Inspector
General of Police: 'Tibetan Pro-independence elements' Won't Be Able To Stir Up
Trouble in Nepal," Huanqiu Shibao, March 29, 2009

“Some 'Tibetan Pro-independence elements' plan to stir
up trouble in Kathmandu on this sensitive date, March 28… I can assure
you that they won’t be able to stir up trouble here.”

—This came from Nepal’s Deputy Inspector General
of Police, Bharat Bahadur G.C. In his 40’s, with his small frame and
refined look, you could never tell that Bharat Bahadur G.C. has been a
policeman for 26 years.

In the hour-long interview, more than 20 policemen came in to
the office asking for his instruction, and his phones never stopped ringing.
This is because Bharat Bahadur G.C. is in charge of over ten thousand policemen
and the safety of 3 million people living in the Kathmandu Valley area. Today,
combating the 'Tibetan Independence' movement is Bharat Bahadur G.C.’s
main job and he told many unknown stories to the Huanqiu Shibao
reporter.

At one point, there were 4,000 policemen deployed to combat
the “Tibetan Independence” movement.

Huanqiu Shibao: Has the work of combating the
“Tibetan Independence” movement taken up a lot of your time lately?

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: It is like this. When things were dire
at the beginning of this March, I had 4,000 policemen dealing with Tibetan
issues. You have to understand, the sum of the police force here is only ten
thousand men. In Nepal, there are 56 thousand policemen in total, about 100 men
stationed at the Prime Minister’s residence. If it were not for all the
illegal activities from the “Tibetan Independence” movement, my job
would be much easier. During this period, combating “Tibetan
Independence” is my main task.

Huanqiu Shibao: The spirit of the “Tibetan
Independence” movement was totally dampened in Nepal this March; there
was no major demonstration in Kathmandu like the Western countries anticipated.

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: Under Nepali law, no foreigner has the
right to participate in political activities, including attending
demonstrations. Most Tibetans in Nepal have no legal passport, visa, Nepali ID,
or even refugee ID. They are illegal residents. Actually, we should deport
them. We haven’t done that because of the pressure from the UNHCR. They
plead leniency for the Tibetans and pledge that they won’t join
“Tibetan Independence” activities. So, for the moment we have
dropped [the idea of deporting them.]

Since this February, there has not been a single
“Tibetan Independence” demonstration, nothing like the huge
gatherings and “Hunger Strike” that took place last year. This is
the result of cooperation between the Chinese and Nepali governments. It is
also the result of a major crackdown carried out by the Interior Ministry and
the Police.

According to the information we gathered, this January the
Kathmandu branches of the Tibetan Youth Congress, the Tibetan Women’s
Association, and The Dalai Lama's representative office in Nepal held numerous
meetings calling independent activists to carry out orders from the Dalai Lama
group and to hold protests and gatherings in Nepal in order to commemorate the
50th anniversary of Tibetan Uprising.

Nepal Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Deputy Prime
Minister/Minister for Home Affairs Bam Dev Gautam gave [the] order to crackdown
on all “Tibetan Independence” activities in Nepal. Prime Minister
Pushpa Kamal Dahal said that Nepal and China enjoy a strong friendship, so the Nepali
government will not allow any “Tibetan Independence” activities on
its soil. Deputy Prime Minister Bam Dev Gautam personally called me and asked
me to combat “Tibetan Independence” activities at all cost, with no
reservation and no mercy. The police see the leadership’s determination
as reassurance to act on this issue; therefore we arrested 14 “Tibetan
pro-independence” leaders and talked to monks in the temples.

Huanqiu Shibao: Can you talk about the actual
action plan?

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: First of all, we deployed more police
force to cover the Tibetan settlement areas. There are three major Tibetan
settlements in the Kathmandu Valley: Boudhanath, Swayambhunath and Jawalakhel.
Take Boudhanath for example, usually there are 150 policemen stationed there,
but we sent 350 people there. In Swayambhunath area, usually there are 85
policemen, but we sent 300 people over this time. We also stationed 360
policemen around the Chinese Embassy in Nepal on a 24-hour watch. There are
also many plainclothes officers in all sensitive areas, they are constantly
watching the activities of ‘Tibetan pro-independence elements.’
Once they spot any gathering, they will inform the HQ right away.

The Tibetan Youth Congress, the Tibetan Women’s
Association, Students for Free Tibet, and other important ‘Free
Tibet’ organizations have branches in Nepal. In the past they were
extremely active. After working on this for a while, the police acquired the
names, addresses and individual details of the leaders of these organizations,
and we also got evidence that they were planning illegal gatherings. In
the middle of the night of March 8 [2009] we carried out a blitz operation
involving over a hundred policemen, arresting 14 leaders of ‘Free
Tibet’ organizations.

Thirdly, we re-educate the main participants of those
“Tibetan Independence” movements: monks. In Kathmandu alone, there
are over 100 major Tibetan Buddhist temples; most of them are under the control
or influence of the Tibetan government-in-exile. Monks and nuns from those
temples played a key role in the “Tibetan Independence” movement
last year. This time, the police worked with Kathmandu City government. We sent
people to the temples talking to leaders in the temples, making sure they
understand Nepali government’s position. If they stay here for pure
religious reason, like chanting and performing ceremonies then there is no
problem. But they should stay out of politics. Monks cannot go on the street to
protest otherwise we will be compelled to enforce the law. You can see now the
temples have been much more quiet since this March, there are no more large
groups of monks protesting on the street.

Huanqiu Shibao: I heard that there are still some
hard-core “Tibetan Pro-independence elements” trying to stir up
trouble.

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: We received a tip this March that there
were over 100 “Tibetan Pro-independence elements” trying to cross
the Chinese-Nepali boarder. We did find about 140 Tibetans at 40-50 kilometers
from the border. I gave the order to stop those Tibetans and convinced them to
go back to Kathmandu. We didn’t arrest them because no actual
“Tibetan Independence” activities had happened yet. At the end,
those Tibetans returned to Kathmandu peacefully. You can say this was an
“attempted” “Tibetan Independence” movement. I also
know three other incidents where Tibetans tried to cross the Chinese-Nepali
border carrying out so-called “Peaceful Liberation.” They will not
succeed this year. This is the triumph of our “Preemptive Plan.”

Huanqiu Shibao: In order for the “Preemptive
Plan” to succeed, you need to have accurate intelligence.

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: We are really getting better and better
at this [intelligence gathering]. Nepal’s police force has an
intelligence department; in the past its main duties were related to major
criminal cases, and had nothing to do with Tibetan issues. After coming to
Kathmandu, I realized that in order to better deal with Tibetan issues, we
needed to rely on powerful intelligence. That is why I ordered the intelligence
department to investigate the situation in Tibetan settlement areas, especially
the illegal activities of “Tibetan pro-independence elements.” Now
this force has already infiltrated all these areas, and they are gathering
information from local Nepali citizens as well as from ordinary Tibetan people.
The results are obvious and the intelligence department coordinates efficiently
with the actions of the police.

I can also tell you, now we
know that some “Tibetan Pro-independence elements” plan to stir up
trouble on the sensitive date of “3/28” [March 28]. This is because
Chinese government announced that March 28 will be the “Liberation Day
for Millions of Farmers” [by the Chinese Communist Party], and the Dalai
group is upset about this so they want to sabotage this. We already received
tips regarding this so I can assure you that they will not succeed.

Right now we are discussing the possibility of turning in to
the Chinese government those Tibetans who do not have legal ID’s here and
are involved in anti-Chinese movements.

Huanqiu Shibao: Weeks ago in India, the Prime Minister
of the Tibetan government–in-exile publically condemned the Nepali
government’s cracking down on the “Tibetan Independence”
movement, and asked the Nepal government to respect the Tibetan people’s
rights to democracy and freedom. What do you think about that?

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: First of all, he is no prime minister,
not a single country in the world recognizes this “government.”
Also, everything that Nepal Police do is in accordance with the law. Our bottom
line is that Tibetans cannot carry out anti-Chinese movements in Nepal, the
Dalai government-in-exile knows this well. We are also discussing the possibility
of turning in to the Chinese government those Tibetans who do not have legal
ID’s here and are involved in anti-China activities.

What’s alarming is that we found that some of the
“Tibetan Independence” movement leaders and key members in Nepal
actually came from India. This means that they are sent by the Dalai clique. On
February 27, the police detained over 20 “Tibetan Independence”
activists who were organizing demonstrations. One of them admitted that he met
with the Dalai Lama in India one week prior.

Huanqiu Shibao: I heard that the police are under
a lot of pressure from Western countries and the UN.

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: Yes, we get a lot of foreign visitors
here at the office. (Laugh) Just a few days ago, a UN officer came here and
asked us to release the detained “Tibetan Independence” leaders. I
said to him that if there is no “Tibetan Independence” movement in
the following three months, then they will be released under the guarantee that
they will no longer engage in anti-Chinese movements. Also I heard that our
Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs often face protest or lobbying
from foreign deputies, they ask us to guarantee the “freedom of
speech” for Tibetans in Nepal. They also accuse us of cracking down on
“peaceful demonstrations of the Tibetan people”. All nonsense.

Actually, starting this year because of the precaution plan
we adopted, most of the “Tibetan Independence” movement has been
put out. The police don’t have to use guns or weapons to “crack
down” on anyone. I have noticed that a lot of Western journalists and
human rights activists will be stationed at all vantage points on sensitive
dates, ready to record any “crackdown” actions. Surely they are
disappointed this year, nothing has happened so they have no “hot
gossip” for the U.N.

Huanqiu Shibao: What is your view on the
“Tibetan Issue”?

Bharat Bahadur G.C.: I knew nothing about the history of
Tibet, but now because of my job I studied Tibetan history. You see, I am
forced into being some kind of a “Tibetan Expert.” In my opinion,
“Tibetan Issues” equals to Chinese territorial integrity. It is an
issue of anti-secession. The West camouflaged the “Tibetan Issue”
now and coated it with “Human Rights” and “Freedom of
Religion,” but the core issues still lays with the Dalai Lama and his big
boss, the USA. That has never changed.

[4]Human Rights Watch interviews and email correspondence with
representatives of the Tibetan government in Exile and volunteers working with
Tibetan refugees, January to December 2013.

[5]The Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that the CRC, in
article 6, establishes an obligation that states party to the CRC
“[…] shall not return a child to a country where there are
substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm
to the child, such as, but by no means limited to, those contemplated under
articles 6.” Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment
No. 6, Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country
of Origin (Thirty-ninth session, 2005), U.N. Doc. CRC/GC/2005/6 (2005).

[7] UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Conclusions Adopted by the Executive
Committee on the International Protection of Refugees, December 2009, 1975-2009
(Conclusion No. 1-109), http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b28bf1f2.html
(accessed 27 November 2013).

[9]
Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol
adopted at the Ministerial Meeting of States Parties of 12–13 December
2001, HCR/MMSP/2001/09, 16 January 2002, http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDLEGAL/3d60f5557.pdf
(accessed on 30 October 2006).

[10]UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Conclusions Adopted by the
Executive Committee on the International Protection of Refugees, December 2009,
1975-2009 (Conclusion No. 1-109), http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b28bf1f2.html
(accessed 27 November 2013).

[11]
UN bodies that have raised concerns about the situation of Tibetans in recent
years include the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination; the Committee on the Rights of the Child; the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; the Committee on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on the Situation of Human Rights
Defenders; and the UN special rapporteurs on, respectively, freedom of religion
or belief, the right to education, the right to food security, and the
promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
For a complete list of relevant documents, see the China country page of the
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/CNIndex.aspx(accessed
November 19, 2013).

[18]Article 2 (1) of the ICCPR provides that “[e]ach State Party to the
present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within
its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the
present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.”

[23]
The “One-China Principle” (in Chinese, ‘yige zhongguo
yuance’) is in a cornerstone of the People’s Republic of
China’s foreign policy. It is accepted by most countries around the
world—including the United States, India, and Nepal. However, it only
refers to one specific issue, which is the status of Taiwan. It has no bearing
on the status of Tibet, what constitutes “anti-China activities,”
or any other issue aside from Taiwan. See China’s White Paper: The
One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue, February 21, 2000, in
particular section V, “Several Questions Involving Adherence to the
One-China Principle in the International Community,” http://www.china.org.cn/english/7956.htm
(accessed October 7, 2013).

[24]
Joint Statement Between Nepal and the People’s Republic of China,
Kathmandu, January 14, 2012

[33]
In September 2011, the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu requested that a group of
23 Tibetans who were in custody at the Department of Immigration be deported
back to China instead of being handed over to the UNHCR as per the terms of the
Gentleman’s Agreement. The Department released them to the UNHCR after
the NGO Huron filed habeas petition to the Supreme Court. “Nepalese
Supreme Court rules against forcible return of Tibetan refugees to
Tibet,” International Campaign for Tibet, September 23, 2011, http://www.savetibet.org/nepalese-supreme-court-rules-against-forcible-return-of-tibetan-refugees-to-tibet/
(accessed October 10, 2013).

[40]International Alert: Security and justice from a district perspective
Rasuwa, Nepal, November 2010; D. P. Bhattarai, “Nepal at the first and
second cross-roads: opportunities for a win/win in the new development
context,” Kathmandu, Nepal: Institute of Foreign Affairs, p.4, www.ifa.org.np/pdf/new1.pdf (accessed November
27, 2013).

[46]This position has been clearly articulated by all recent governments in
Nepal. See for instance: “Nepal-China Relations,” official website
of the Nepal Embassy in China, http://www.nepalembassy.org.cn/nepal_dimension.php
(accessed March 10, 2014).

[49]
“Premier Wen Jiabao Holds Talks with Nepalese Prime Minister
Bhattarai,” Xinhua News Agency, January 14, 2012, http://om.chineseembassy.org/eng/xwdt_2_1_1/t896571.htm
(accessed October 10, 2013). The join-declaration signed at this occasion
states: “The Nepalese side firmly supports the efforts made by the
Chinese side to uphold state sovereignty, national unity and territorial
integrity, and does not allow any forces to use Nepalese territory for any
anti-China or separatist activities. The Chinese side highly appreciated the
position of the Nepalese side.” Joint-Statement between Nepal and the
People’s Republic of China, January 14, 2012, available on the website of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC at http://www.mofa.gov.np/en/news/detail/510
(accessed October 9, 2013).

[72] Human
Rights Watch interview with a former senior government official in the Ministry
of Home Affairs, Kathmandu, October 2013. The official asked that we withhold
his name because of the sensitivity of the issue.

[83]
Tibetans living or having emigrated abroad who do not have a foreign passport
can apply for a special travel document designed for “Tibetan
compatriots.” This document, colloquially called “blue book,”
allows a single entry into China for the purpose of visiting Tibetan areas.
Relatives in Tibet must agree to be listed as “guarantor” and the
visitor must register with the local Public Security Bureau on arrival. Both
Kathmandu and New Delhi Chinese embassies can deliver the permit.

[91]
While China has consistently exiled government critics and dissidents not
renewing their travel documents or denying them reentry at the border, there is
only one recorded case in recent years in which the police attempted to
forcibly expel a citizen. Yet the man, who had been put on a plane to Japan,
refused to leave the international zone of Narita airport and the Chinese
government was ultimately forced to let him return to China three months
later. See: “Chinese activist grounded at Japan airport,” The
Financial Times, November 16, 2009,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f0d3dae-d2dd-11de-af63-00144feabdc0.html;
“‘Terminal man’ returns to China,” The Financial
Times, February 20, 2010,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/edad2d90-1d80-11df-a893-00144feab49a.html
(accessed January 20, 2013).

[105] Human
Rights Watch interviews with former detainees at Shigatse detention facilities,
Kathmandu, June and November 2012.

[106]On July 1, 2013, China enacted a new law that replaced the previous
modalities governing Chinese citizens and foreigners, Exit and Entry
Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at
the 27th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People’s
Congress on June 30, 2012), http://www.mps.gov.cn/n16/n84147/n84196/3837042.html(accessed
October 10, 2013).

[112]Many people were arrested more than once. These events were the subject
of a 60-page report by Human Rights Watch in July 2008: Appeasing China:
Restricting the Rights of Tibetans in Nepal (available at: www.hrw.org/reports/2008/07/23/appeasing-china-0).
Human Rights Watch investigations found that at least 1,779 Tibetans and 13
Nepali human rights activists were arrested for participating in demonstrations
in Kathmandu between March 10 and April 2, 2008, and that, as of July 18, 2008,
a further 6,571 protesters had been arrested since protests resumed on April
15. Official Nepali statistics on the number of Tibetans arrested are not
available. The numbers in this report are based on information provided by
formerly detained Tibetans to Human Rights Watch and are similar to those of
other human rights organizations.

[141]Many in the Tibetan world, both inside and outside of China, view the
people who commit self-immolation as “heroes/martyrs” who have
sacrificed their life for the Tibet cause. They tend to see the immolations as
a vindication of their claims about Chinese oppression of Tibet, and as
symbolic victories against the large security apparatus mobilized to prevent
self-immolations from happening. Large posters featuring a mosaic of pictures
of people who have self-immolated feature prominently in Tibetan settlements in
Nepal.

[147]Human Rights Watch interview with Boudhanath’s Tibetan Community
leader, Kathmandu, June 2012. See also International Campaign for Tibet,
“Dangerous Crossing: Conditions Impacting the Flight of Tibetan Refugees,
2011,” October 11, 2012, www.savetibet.org/dangerous-crossing-2011-update/
(accessed October 31, 2013).

[148]See International Commission of Jurists, “Nepal – National
Security Laws and Human Rights Implications,” August 2009.

[149]Section 3.1 of the Public Security Act, states: “The Local
Official, if there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to prevent a person
immediately from committing specific activities likely to jeopardize the
sovereignty, integrity, or public tranquility and order of the Kingdom of
Nepal, may issue an order to hold him/her under preventive detention for
specified term and at specified place.”

[152]Human Rights Watch interview with an elected member of the Tibetan Youth
Congress, Kathmandu, December 2012.

[153]
Human Rights Watch interview with a Tibetan volunteer working with refugees,
Kathmandu, June 2013.

[154]
See HRC, “Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
on the human rights situation and the activities of her office, including
technical cooperation, in Nepal,” A/HRC/16/23, February 16, 2011,
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/107/67/PDF/G1110767.pdf?OpenElement
(accessed January 29, 2013); and International Commission of Jurists,
“Nepal – National Security Laws and Human Rights
Implications,” August 2009.

[159]According to a 2009 report by the International Commission of Jurists
(ICJ): “Unfettered powers granted to the CDO
to prohibit and prevent assembly, even peaceful gatherings, with no effective
oversight on the exercise of these powers, results in severe restrictions on
the right to assemble. Given the extraordinary nature of powers conferred on
the CDO, without any independent judicial review, the provisions of the LAA
could lead to arbitrary detention of demonstrators, suppression of non-violent
assemblies and other peaceful expressions of opinion.” Source:
International Commission of Jurists: Nepal – National Security Laws and
Human Rights Implications, August 2009, p. 41.

[160]Human Rights Watch interview with the head of a Tibetan community
organization, Kathmandu, November 2013.

[161]Human Rights Watch interview with the head of a Tibetan community
organization, Kathmandu, November 2013.

[170] In December 2005, the names of five Nepali human rights
activists were circulated by the then Royal Nepal Army in what local and
international human rights organizations perceived as an attempt to instill
fear in the human rights community. See Human Rights Watch press release,
““Nepal: Human Rights Defenders Under Threat: Enhanced
International Protection Urgently Needed,””
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/17/nepal9910.htm. In February 2005, a list
of 21 human rights defenders was circulated immediately following the
King’s takeover for the apparent purpose of arrests, restrictions on
freedom of movement, and surveillance. See Human Rights Watch press release, “Nepal:
Danger of ‘‘Disappearances’’ Escalates: International
Monitoring, Pressure Vital to Protect Rights,” http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/02/09/nepal10152.htm

[171]"Exclusive Interview with Nepal's Deputy Inspector General of
Police: 'Tibetan Pro-independence elements' Won't Be Able To Stir Up Trouble in
Nepal," HuanqiuShibao, March 29, 2009 ["专访尼泊尔警察副总监：“藏独”在尼闹不起来", 2009/03/29,
环球时报], http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2009-03/417537.html (accessed
October 10, 2013).